A26982:350
Richard Baxter's penitent confession and his necessary vindication in answer to a book called…
Richard Baxter's penitent confession and his necessary vindication in answer to a book called The second part of the mischiefs of separation, written by an unnamed author with a preface to Mr. Cantianus D. Minimis, in answer to his letter which extorted this publication.
London: printed for Tho. Parkhurst, 1691
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.
Even the late great Lord Chancellor Hide sat Chairman of the Committee of Parliament that received the Petitions against Episcopacy, Root and Branch, and made such Speeches against the Delinquents as I dare not justify. But he forsook them when they quite over-went him.
Even the late great Lord Chancellor Hide sat Chairman of the Committee of Parliament that received the Petitions against Episcopacy, Root and Branch, and made such Speeches against the Delinquents as I dare not justifie. But he forsook them when they quite over-went him.
If the King of England had a War with the French, and I knew that his Cause were bad, I would not defend his bad Cause, but I would in his Army defend the Kingdom, against those that would Captivate it by Conquest: For the Kingdom doth not forfeit its safety by the Kings misdoing: And if any say, [Then the King shall be defended in all his injuries how bad soever,] I would answer, [That is by accident, it is the Kingdom that I defend, and Him as a means to defend the Kingdom, and not to justify his sin: I leave that to God: What a case is a Kingdom in if it must Fight against it self, and its representing security, as oft as its Representatives miscarry by any sinister means? And that all that are to be judged by the chief Judicature, shall Fight to Conquer them, if the King do but bid them? If the safety of this Kingdom be once put into the Trust of the King alone, the Constitution is changed, and all Enslaved.
If the King of England had a War with the French, and I knew that his Cause were bad, I would not defend his bad Cause, but I would in his Army defend the Kingdom, against those that would Captivate it by Conquest: For the Kingdom doth not forfeit its safety by the Kings misdoing: And if any say, [Then the King shall be defended in all his injuries how bad soever,] I would answer, [That is by accident, it is the Kingdom that I defend, and Him as a means to defend the Kingdom, and not to justifie his sin: I leave that to God: What a case is a Kingdom in if it must Fight against it self, and its representing security, as oft as its Representatives miscarry by any sinister means? And that all that are to be judged by the chief Judicature, shall Fight to Conquer them, if the King do but bid them? If the safety of this Kingdom be once put into the Trust of the King alone, the Constitution is changed, and all Enslaved.