A26924:980
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.
CHAP. LX. The Reasons of these ten Articles.
L. YOU must give me leave to tell you what objections are like to be raised against your proposed Articles of Reconciliation. And first your own party will be unsatisfied in them, and so they will do no good, because here is not a word against Arch-bishops, Bishops, Deans, Arch-deacons, and the rest that bear office in their Courts, which yet is the thing that you your self seem most to dissent from, and which the Covenant did renounce.
L. YOV must give me leave to tell you what objections are like to be raised against your proposed Articles of Reconciliation. And first your own party will be unsatisfied in them, and so they will do no good, because here is not a word against Arch-bishops, Bishops, Deans, Arch-deacons, and the rest that bear office in their Courts, which yet is the thing that you your self seem most to dissent from, and which the Covenant did renounce.
M. 1. We have so much swearing and unswearing and forswearing, that I will meddle as little as I can in things that look like Perjury. You know that as the last Generation was sworn against Prelacy, this new Generation is sworn to it: Yea in a manner the whole Land is sworn or covenanted never to endeavour any alteration of it: And how much soever I am against that Oath, yet I will meddle as little as I can in urging men to that which they take for Perjury. And I have elsewhere told you that the Covenant renounced not all Episcopacy; many of the Assembly of Divines declared their dissent from any such renunciation, and had entered their protestation against it (as Dr. Cornel. Burges told me) had not the Explication been added, which confineth the Renunciation to the English frame. And that the present Non-Conformists would have thankfully received the Primitive Episcopacy, they showed by their motion, 1660. 2. We offer this form on supposition that we may not have what we think best, but what we can joyfully submit to, for our Concord and the Churches safety. 3. I have inserted those restraints of the hurt and abuse of the Diocesan form and their Courts, as may do much to secure Religion: And if they be kept from doing harm, we have most of our end. Their faults are not ours who cannot remedy them. 4. And you are mistaken in thinking that this form of Reconciliation will cause no Concord: Less was accepted with published thanks to the King for his Declaration, 1660. And I believe that the Dissenters would be so few, as that the Concord of Consenters would render them inconsiderable, or uncapable of being dangerous to our peace.