A26924:129
The English nonconformity as under King Charles II and King James II truly stated…
The English nonconformity as under King Charles II and King James II truly stated and argued by Richard Baxter ; who earnestly beseecheth rulers and clergy not to divide and destroy the land and cast their own souls on the dreadful guilt and punishment of national perjury ...
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.
M. There is a satisfactory concession in these words, but the accusations are made up of falsehood and deceit. 1. Archbishop Usher and others that thought the Ejectors of Episcopacy were guilty of Schism, yet maintained that their Ordination was valid: He told me how he pleaded it to the King. 2. Do they think that Salmasius, Blundel and all others that have written more against our Prelacy than the English, were deprived of it against their wills by necessity. 3. What necessity can they pretend to the Hollanders, Helvetians, Geneva, Emden, Bremen, the Palatinate, and Scotland heretofore? might they not have had Prelates when they would. ⟨p. 27⟩4. Was not the necessity far more notorious to those that I now plead for. They lived in a Land where Episcopacy was cast out, and kept out by a potent Army. I think there were but four or five Bishops alive when it was restored. 5. It is false that they cast out the Bishops. Those Ministers that joined with the Parliament to cast them out, were Ordained by Bishops, and therefore are none of the men that we are speaking of: These that were Ordained by Presbyters were then young men at School, or in the Universities. And what are other mens actions to them?
M. There is a satisfactory concession in these words, but the accusations are made up of falsehood and deceit. 1. Archbishop Vsher and others that thought the Ejectors of Episcopacy were guilty of Schism, yet maintained that their Ordination was valid: He told me how he pleaded it to the King. 2. Do they think that Salmasius, Blundel and all others that have written more against our Prelacy than the English, were deprived of it against their wills by necessity. 3. What necessity can they pretend to the Hollanders, Helvetians, Geneva, Embden, Bremen, the Palatinate, and Scotland heretofore? might they not have had Prelates when they would. ⟨p. 27⟩4. Was not the necessity far more notorious to those that I now plead for. They lived in a Land where Episcopacy was cast out, and kept out by a potent Army. I think there were but four or five Bishops alive when it was restored. 5. It is false that they cast out the Bishops. Those Ministers that joyned with the Parliament to cast them out, were Ordained by Bishops, and therefore are none of the men that we are speaking of: These that were Ordained by Presbyters were then young men at School, or in the Universities. And what are other mens actions to them?