A26924:846
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 55: POINT XII. Whether all Trusted in Corporations may declare, That there is NO OBLIGATION…
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. You would make all the Corporations of England constituted by the grossest Perjury that men can be guilty of, even by disobliging or justifying themselves, and all others in three Kingdoms whom they never saw, in the violating of a Vow against Heresy, Schism, Popery, and Profaneness, and Impenitence: When as you know that our Clergy cry down Schism every day.
L. You would make all the Corporations of England constituted by the grossest Perjury that men can be guilty of, even by disobliging or justifying themselves, and all others in three Kingdoms whom they never saw, in the violating of a Vow against Heresy, Schism, Popery, and Prophaneness, and Impenitence: When as you know that our Clergy cry down Schism every day.
M. I leave all Men to answer for their own actions: I only tell you why the Dissenters dare not take these Oaths: I meddle not with other Men. And you know a man that saith, This Vow binds not, may yet hold that something else binds us against the same thing. But if I were for Schism, and should argue from this topic of the non-obligation of the Vow, I know not how you could answer me.
M. I leave all Men to answer for their own actions: I only tell you why the Dissenters dare not take these Oaths: I meddle not with other Men. And you know a man that saith, This Vow binds not, may yet hold that something else binds us against the same thing. But if I were for Schism, and should argue from this topick of the non-obligation of the Vow, I know not how you could answer me.
L. Let us try, What is your Argument?