A second true defence of the mere nonconformists against the untrue accusations, reasonings, and…A second true defence of the meer nonconformists against the untrue accusations, reasonings, and…

§. 12. But yet there are more undeniable evidences of the falseness of what, he saith, he is certain of, as the judgment of All the Old Nonconformists. One is the known judgement of the Scotch Reformers, and the common accusation of the English, as being of their mind. He that will affirm that the Scotch Presbyterians thought it unlawful to preach or hold Assemblies, when forbidden by Magistrates or Prelates, will incur a very sharp censure from their own Leaders, who have written so many Books, which charge them with the contrary, and make them Rebels and Seditious for it: Such as Bancroft, Heylin, Beziers, and multitudes both old and new; especially these last twenty years.

And though the Nonconformists in England did not justify all that the Scots did (and they that took Knox, Buchanan, Melvin, and such other for very pious men, yet thought some words and deeds too rash, especially Knox's public opening the Queens faults in the Pulpit, and refusing her offer to come at any time, and tell her of them privately) yet its known, that in the Rules of Discipline, they were mostly of the same judgment: And they often joined in defending the same Cause. See their several demonstrations of Discipline, and the several Defences of them, how little they differed, when Bancroft preached against them at Pauls Cross, Feb. 8. 1588. An English man wrote a Brief Discovery of his untruths, &c. And a Scotch man J. D. Bancrofts rashness in railing against the Church of Scotland, printed 1590. And how little differ they, if at all (and Dr. ⟨p. 35⟩Reignolds wrote a Letter against it to Sir Francis Knowles, printed with Sir Francis Knowles his account to the Lord Burleigh of his Speech in Parliament, against the Bishops keeping Courts in their own names, as condemned by Law.

And though the Nonconformists in England did not justifie all that the Scots did (and they that took Knox, Buchanan, Melvin, and such other for very pious men, yet thought some words and deeds too rash, especially Knox's publick opening the Queens faults in the Pulpit, and refusing her offer to come at any time, and tell her of them privately) yet its known, that in the Rules of Discipline, they were mostly of the same judgment: And they often joyned in defending the same Cause. See their several demonstrations of Discipline, and the several Defences of them, how little they differed, when Bancroft preacht against them at Pauls Cross, Feb. 8. 1588. An English man wrote a Brief Discovery of his untruths, &c. And a Scoth man J. D. Bancrofts rashness in railing against the Church of Scotland, printed 1590. And how little differ they, if at all (and Dr.