A26924:772
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. Yes, of Discipline against Christ: It is not enough for your Churches to be common and unclean without true Discipline, but when you should drive out the Dogs and Swine, you turn out the Children: Witness all the fore-mentioned Canons. As I said, you first force in all the ignorant ungodly multitude that are unfit; then these are the strength and major part: Then they cannot come under due Discipline; then this grieveth Religious People, and they find fault with it. And then they must be taken for Schismatics, and condemned and ruined for finding fault. In short, what need there disputing: Is it not notorious matter of fact that this Discipline is not exercised against one Drunkard, Swearer, Fornicator, &c. of a multitude? and are not Men then deprived of the use of it? And when it's known that they cannot have it in most or many Parishes, how are they bound to live and die without the benefit of it?
M. Yes, of Discipline against Christ: It is not enough for your Churches to be common and unclean without true Discipline, but when you should drive out the Dogs and Swine, you turn out the Children: Witness all the fore-mentioned Canons. As I said, you first force in all the ignorant ungodly multitude that are unfit; then these are the strength and major part: Then they cannot come under due Discipline; then this grieveth Religious People, and they find fault with it. And then they must be taken for Schismaticks, and condemn'd and ruin'd for finding fault. In short, what need there disputing: Is it not notorious matter of fact that this Discipline is not exercised against one Drunkard, Swearer, Fornicator, &c. of a multitude? and are not Men then deprived of the use of it? And when it's known that they cannot have it in most or many Parishes, how are they bound to live and die without the benefit of it?
L. Do you think Men are bound to separate from all Churches that have not this Discipline? Sure it is not Essential to the Church.