A26982:512
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.
Then he tells us what the Bishop of Chester told Mr. Walton (Morley's Steward) what Bishop Sanderson said against me,] which is half false: Bishop Sanderson taking the Chair. I being by a multitude of Arguments from the words of the Text, proving against Dr. Gunning that Paul in Rom. 14, and 15. requireth us to receive to Communion such as differed in as great matters as those do that scruple kneeling at the Sacrament (which I told them I scruple not.) I once told Dr. Gunning ⟨p. 74⟩that he did petere principium in a case wherein Dr. Sanderson said that word was not in the common Logical sense applicable to his words: And the old Learned peevish Man added that I was perverse for saying it: And this was the heavy Charge.
Then he tells us what the Bishop of Chester told Mr. Walton (Morley's Steward) what Bishop Sanderson said against me,] which is half false: Bishop Sanderson taking the Chair. I being by a multitude of Arguments from the words of the Text, proving against Dr. Gunning that Paul in Rom. 14, and 15. requireth us to receive to Communion such as differed in as great matters as those do that scruple kneeling at the Sacrament (which I told them I scruple not.) I once told Dr. Gunning ⟨p. 74⟩that he did petere principium in a case wherein Dr. Sanderson said that word was not in the common Logical sence applicable to his words: And the old Learned peevish Man added that I was perverse for saying it: And this was the heavy Charge.
And he addeth what Bishop Morley said of my eagerness to dispute, when my Prethren were unwilling.] Ans. Bishop Morley's words of me were much what as credible as yours or Roger Le Strange's. Why then did they consent if they were unwilling? And if neither Reasoning nor Petitioning them might be used, what were we Commissioned for? The truth is, many of our Brethren, when the Bishops told them they would say nothing to us, till we brought in writing to them all the faults that we found with the Liturgy, and also all the Forms in terminis, which we desired as amendments or additions, did say, [It was not this, but an amicable consultation that the King Commissioned us for; and seeing that this was a mere fraudulent pretence for our frustration, they motioned our departing, as being denied all that we were called to:] But I told them, that the Bishops would report behind our Backs where we could not be heard, that we had nothing to say against their Impositions, nor any other terms to offer, (thinking we would never have agreed on any other.) Therefore I satisfied divers of them that though we were prejudged, it were better let the World see our Cause stated in Writing, than leave them to accuse us so, when we should never have leave to declare the truth, and deny their misreports.