A26912:279
A defence of the principles of love, which are necessary to the unity and…
A defence of the principles of love, which are necessary to the unity and concord of Christians and are delivered in a book called The cure of church-divisions ... / by Richard Baxter ...
London: printed for Nevil Simmons, 1671
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.
Answ. 1. IF this were true, I were much too blame, it being the very usage of others against my self, which I have great reason to complain of.
2. But if it was possible for you to believe your own words, that I never mention them but with honour, I shall think that there are few things that you may not possibly believe. Reader, if thou peruse the book, and ⟨p. 18⟩yet believe this Author, I am not capable of satisfying thee in this, nor will I undertake1 it in any thing else. Are these terms of honour Pref. p. 18. [How long Lord must thy Church and Cause be in the hands of unexperienced furious fools▪ &c.] Do I honour them when I so much display their sin? And when in the scheme in the conclusion I describe it? And when I tell you of many of such Ministers, and that it is a duty to separate from them, or disown them. And when in the history of Martin, I tell you how near it I am my self, as to such as Martin separated from? And when I cite Gildas, calling such no Ministers, but enemies and traitors, &c. Were you not very rash in this?
2. But if it was possible for you to believe your own words, that I never mention them but with honour, I shall think that there are few things that you may not possibly believe. Reader, if thou peruse the book, and ⟨p. 18⟩yet believe this Author, I am not capable of satisfying thee in this, nor will I undertake1 it in any thing else. Are these terms of honour Pref. p. 18. [How long Lord must thy Church and Cause be in the hands of unexperienced furious fools▪ &c.] Do I honour them when I so much display their sin? And when in the scheme in the conclusion I describe it? And when I tell you of many of such Ministers, and that it is a duty to separate from them, or disown them. And when in the history of Martin, I tell you how neer it I am my self, as to such as Martin separated from? And when I cite Gildas, calling such no Ministers, but enemies and traytors, &c. Were you not very rash in this?