A26871:282
Cain and Abel malignity that is, enmity to serious godliness, that is, to an…
Cain and Abel malignity that is, enmity to serious godliness, that is, to an holy and heavenly state of heart and life : lamented, described, detected, and unanswerably [sic] proved to be the devilish nature, and the militia of the devil against God and Christ and the church and kingdoms, and the surest sign of a state of damnation / by Richard Baxter, or, Gildas Salvianus ...Cain and Abel malignity that is, enmity to serious godliness, that is, to an holy and heavenly state of heart and life : lamented, described, detected, and unananswerably [sic] proved to be the devilish nature, and the militia of the devil against God and Christ and the church and kingdoms, and the surest sign of a state of damnation / by Richard Baxter, or, Gildas Salvianus ...
London: printed for Tho. Parkhurst, 1689
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.
But as to the other case of taking the Corporation Oath and Declaration, if you know the case (as you should do before you accuse men) you know that it is the true sense of them that is all the controversy: No body scruples swearing Loyalty, and renouncing Rebellion and Sedition, and all unlawful means of reformation: That which makes it difficult is that on one side, the proper universal sense of the words seems to them unlawful, and Oaths must be taken in the usual sense, unless our Rulers give another, yet on the other side, learned, sober Conformists profess that they take such words in the limited sense, or else they would not take them; And they argue subtly to prove that to be the true sense; And our Law-makers to whom it belongs will not end the controversy by an exposition. And can you wonder here if men fluctuate in uncertainty? And a late writer having given subtler arguments for the limited sense than were published before, did persuade many: And in that limited sense twenty Nonconformist Ministers took the oath long ago in London at one time.
But as to the other case of taking the Corporation Oath and Declaration, if you know the case (as you should do before you accuse men) you know that it is the true sence of them that is all the controversy: No body scruples swearing Loyalty, and renouncing Rebellion and Sedition, and all unlawful means of reformation: That which makes it difficult is that on one side, the proper universal sence of the words seems to them unlawful, and Oaths must be taken in the usual sence, unless our Rulers give another, yet on the other side, learned, sober Conformists profess that they take such words in the limited sence, or else they would not take them; And they argue subtilly to prove that to be the true sence; And our Law-makers to whom it belongs will not end the controversy by an exposition. And can you wonder here if men fluctuate in uncertainty? And a late writer having given subtiler arguments for the limited sence than were published before, did perswade many: And in that limited sence twenty Nonconformist Ministers took the oath long ago in London at one time.
But I justify none that mistake in so ⟨p. 127⟩