A26959:788
More proofs of infants church-membership and consequently their right to baptism, or, A second…
More proofs of infants church-membership and consequently their right to baptism, or, A second defence of our infant rights and mercies in three parts ... / by Richard Baxter.
London: printed for N. Simmons and J. Robinson, 1675
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.
§. 13. Saith Mr. D. (Pref. ed. 1.) [He hath so much abounded (in contradictions) (none more that I know of;) being as you'll find, sometime a great opposer, then a great defender of Episcopacy.]
§. 13. Saith Mr. D. (Pref. ed. 1.) [He hath so much abounded (in contradictions) (none more that I know of;) being as you'l find, sometime a great opposer, then a great defender of Episcopacy.]
Answ. 1. Yet I know not that ever this man saw me (as I said) or I him. 2. This falsehood did unhappily overslip him, my writing being so full a confutation of it, that he can have nothing of sense to say to cloak it. My judgement was for Episcopacy 1639. by Reading Bishop Downame and some others: But in 1640. the oath called Et caetera calling us to swear never to consent to the alteration of the present Government by A. Bishops, Bishops, Deans, Archdeacons, &c. forced me to study the whole cause to the bottom, since which time my judgement of Episcopacy never altered (which is 34 years ago) having settled in the Receptibility of one sort of Episcopacy, ⟨p. 299⟩and the desirableness of another, and the dislike of another sort: All which I have fully published in my Dispute of Church-Government 1658. when the Bishops here were at the lowest. Either this man knew me and my writings herein, or not. If not, what a man is this that dare talk thus confidently and falsely of what he knew not? If he did, then how much more flagitious is his practice, thus to tell the world an untruth so notorious to himself? He saith (as you may find) but never tells you where. Let him tell you where and when I ever defended that Episcopacy which I had opposed?
Answ. 1. Yet I know not that ever this man saw me (as I said) or I him. 2. This falshood did unhappily overslip him, my writing being so full a confutation of it, that he can have nothing of sense to say to cloak it. My judgement was for Episcopacy 1639. by Reading Bishop Downame and some others: But in 1640. the oath called Et caetera calling us to swear never to consent to the alteration of the present Government by A. Bishops, Bishops, Deans, Archdeacons, &c. forced me to study the whole cause to the bottom, since which time my judgement of Episcopacy never altered (which is 34 years ago) having setled in the Receptibility of one sort of Episcopacy,