A27046:104
A third defence of the cause of peace proving 1. the need of our…
A third defence of the cause of peace proving 1. the need of our concord, 2. the impossibility of it, on the terms of the present impositions against the accusations and storms of, viz., Mr. John Hinckley, a nameless impleader, a nameless reflector, or Speculum, &c., Mr. John Cheny's second accusation, Mr. Roger L'Strange, justice, &c., the Dialogue between the Pope and a fanatic, J. Varney's fanatic Prophecy / by Richard Baxter.A third defence of the cause of peace proving 1. the need of our concord, 2. the impossibility of it, on the terms of the present impositions against the accusations and storms of, viz., Mr. John Hinckley, a nameless impleader, a nameless reflector, or Speculum, &c., Mr. John Cheny's second accusation, Mr. Roger L'Strange, justice, &c., the Dialogue between the Pope and a fanatic, J. Varney's phanatic Prophesie / by Richard Baxter.
London: printed for Jacob Sampson, 1681
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.
What you say of the Infection from Geneva, hath this sense: [Geneva infected the English Fugitives with Presbyterianism; Ergo the Parliament 1642, were Presbyterians.] We deny the Consequence. For, 1. They infected not all England. 2. Nor those individual persons. 3. They that were infected were non-conformable Ministers, who were after silenced or trodden down by the Bishops, and had not any Votes in Parliaments.
Next when I tell you, That Parliament, Militia, Army, Major Generals, &c. were no Presbyterians: You answer me, That you meddle not with Lay-men. Answ. And what need we more, were not the Parliament Lay-men? And was it not the Parliament that raised the Militia and the Armies, and that gave Commissions to Major Generals &c. And was it not the Lay-men that were the Commanders and Soldiers that fought against the Armies of the King. And yet all this was an Historical Paradox to you. But you say, The dissenting ⟨p. 64⟩Brethren were most guilty in blowing the Trumpet. Answ. 1. Suppose that were true; all that you can say were but this, That one Episcopal Party raised a War against the King, and the other Party, because some Non-conformists blew the Trumpet, or persuaded them. But if Episcopal men are so unstable and simple to be drawn into such a War by a few Non-conformists, why do you not acknowledge it? But you question whether there were •hen so few Presbyterians in England, because a thousand subscribed a Petition in King Jame's time. Answ. This is to write History by conjecture against notorious matter of fact. I named you the men; I can name you those in the Assembly of Divines, Mr. Nigh, Mr. Goodwin, Mr. Simpson, Mr. Bridge, Mr. Boroughs, Mr. Philips, Mr. Greenhill, and Mr. Caryl (after) all Independents, and Mr. Ash a Presbyterian. Name me many more English Non-conformists if you can: And name me as many more in the Land then I have named, if you can! But a thousand subscribed the Petition. Bancroft, and your other such Conformists tell you, that it was not so, and that most of them Conformed then or soon after: You can believe such men when it serveth your turn. The truth is, many Conformed, and the rest were dead and gone. Do you think there were many Non-conformists alive in 1642, who subscribed that Petition when King James came in. If Mr. Dod were, I suppose not many more. But did they not increase and multiply? Answ. Excellent History! Did not we live in the Country with them? Should we not have known them? Name them as I do. They were all consumed to the number that I mention, except some that went into