A26924:512
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
Chapter 37: Point XXXIV. Of renouncing all Obligations from the Covenant, as on me or any other, to…
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.
L. III. This brings up to the other part of your Reasons; and why may you not say that none is so bound?
M. 1. Because God never made me a Casuist to determine the case for all men in three Kingdoms. 2. Because it is a new and monstrous thing for one private man (yea many thousand private men) to be forced to such an Office and Undertaking: Every man must answer for himself before God and Man: Noxa caput sequitur. If I were commanded to be surety for every man in England, Scotland and Ireland, but for ⟨p. 128⟩the Peace or good Behaviour, I should think it a piece of as palpable injustice as most ever the World knew. But if I must undertake to answer for all their Souls, in a case where thousands of Learned men have been of the contrary mind, I'll first think how to answer for my own. Yet as to that part which I am certain of my self, I do not scruple it. I dare subscribe that the Covenant bindeth no man to be False or Rebellious against the King, or to endeavour to alter our Monarchy, or to deprive the King of any of his Rights; nor to endeavour to change any part of Church Government which Christ hath instituted for continuance in his Church. And is not this enough? But whether our Diocesan frame, as distinct from that which Arch-bishop Usher called the Primitive Government, be changeable; or whether none of their Courts, and Lay-mens power of the Keys be changeable, or ought to be changed? And whether no man may endeavour it in his place and calling? I think a man may be saved without knowing. And I think, if you ask a man, if King and Parliament should change the Office of an Official, a Commissary, a Chancellor, &c. or should set up a Bishop in every Market Town, is it a sin against God? or is it unlawful to obey them? or if it be lawful to do it, and any of them Swear to endeavour it in his place, is he bound to perform that Oath? If to all this a man say, I cannot tell, I am not Learned enough in Law and Divinity to resolve such cases; but I am resolved my self to live in Loyalty and Peace. I would ask any man that hath not put off humanity, whether that man be fit to determine the case for all other men in three Kingdoms, and to be a voucher for all their Souls in a case that he understandeth not himself. L How doth this make you a Voucher for their Souls?