A26865:29
An apology for the nonconformists ministry containing I. the reasons of their preaching, II.…
An apology for the nonconformists ministry containing I. the reasons of their preaching, II. an answer to the accusations urged as reasons for the silencing of about 2000 by Bishop Morley ..., III. reasons proving it the duty and interest of the bishops and conformists to endeavour earnestly their restoration : with a postscript upon oral debates with Mr. H. Dodwell, against his reasons for their silence ... : written in 1668 and 1669, for the most of it, and now published as an addition to the defence against Dr. Stillingfleet, and as an account to the silencers of the reasons of our practice / by Richard Baxter.
London: printed for T. Parkhurst and D. Newman, 1681
Modern spelling is a reading aid: the words are the author’s, only the spelling is modernized. Original shows the page as printed, with the transcription marks.
I have recited this much principally to mind you of these few things: 1. That we were not the last in seeking Reconciliation, Unity and Peace. 2. That we are the more excusable if we are not changed in our judgment, because you never Answered our three last Writings given in. (We have since indeed seen two Volumes, which are against two particular passages: The one by a nameless Author, who would have no Prayers in the Pulpit, but the Liturgy, or imposed forms: but most of the Conformists practise the contrary to this day, and therefore we need not write to confute him. The other, to prove that Lent should be kept, not only on a Civil, but Religious account, and the antiquity thereof; of which Dr. More in his Mystery of Iniquity, Bishop Taylor, and other Conformists, have spoken so well, that we need to say nothing, especially in a case which we take to be of no great moment to us, ⟨p. 6⟩while each man hath the liberty of his secret thoughts, and may observe it on what account he please. But had it been of moment, we had told the Author that he lost his labour in proving the antiquity of one, or three, or few days fast, when the question was only of the antiquity of the forty days (of which Daily hath given a full account.)
I have recited this much principally to mind you of these few things: 1. That we were not the last in seeking Reconciliation, Unity and Peace. 2. That we are the more excusable if we are not changed in our judgment, because you never Answered our three last Writings given in. (We have since indeed seen two Volumes, which are against two particular passages: The one by a nameless Author, who would have no Prayers in the Pulpit, but the Liturgy, or imposed forms: but most of the Conformists practise the contrary to this day, and therefore we need not write to confute him. The other, to prove that Lent should be kept, not only on a Civil, but Religious account, and the antiquity thereof; of which Dr. More in his Mystery of Iniquity, Bishop Taylor, and other Conformists, have spoken so well, that we need to say nothing, especially in a case which we take to be of no great moment to us, ⟨p. 6⟩while each man hath the liberty of his secret thoughts, and may observe it on what account he please. But had it been of moment, we had told the Author that he lost his labour in proving the antiquity of one, or three, or few days fast, when the question was only of the antiquity of the forty days (of which Daille hath given a full account.)