A26865:611
An apology for the nonconformists ministry containing I. the reasons of their preaching, II.…
An apology for the nonconformists ministry containing I. the reasons of their preaching, II. an answer to the accusations urged as reasons for the silencing of about 2000 by Bishop Morley ..., III. reasons proving it the duty and interest of the bishops and conformists to endeavour earnestly their restoration : with a postscript upon oral debates with Mr. H. Dodwell, against his reasons for their silence ... : written in 1668 and 1669, for the most of it, and now published as an addition to the defence against Dr. Stillingfleet, and as an account to the silencers of the reasons of our practice / by Richard Baxter.
London: printed for T. Parkhurst and D. Newman, 1681
AN APOLOGY FOR THE SILENCED MINISTERS, Especially for their not cea… › Part › Accusation 31
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.
2. He thus proceedeth, [A second reason why they conform not, is their Interest]. If this be thought a Paradox (it being a strange method to consult their interest, by losing their Livings), the dissatisfied person is desired to consider, that the Ringleaders of the faction having possessed themselves of other mens preferments, and foreseeing that they should be restored to the right owners, thence made a virtue of necessity, by assuring their Proselytes, that they were resolved to stick to them; and as they had defended the Cause with their Tongues and Pens, they were now ready▪ if Providence call them to it, to seal it with their blood. (And is it a sign of covetousness, to dye for what they hold?) But by this he tells us, that [the people were melted into such kindness, as that the Preachers are no losers by their silence (Here's the wonder: Hear the proof.) 1. Many of them gain more at present from their party, than they could from the Church, if they conformed.]
Ans. 1. O that he would name those many, and let us try the case? and see also whether they are a considerable number? The ⟨p. 164⟩Independents are commonly thought to be best provided for in London—But how small is their maintenance to what they had, or might have had heretofore? And why might they not now have more if they could conform? We were just now accused by him and another, about our deliberate refusing of Church Dignities? And doth he think that we get more now than a Bishopric or Deanery would have amounted to? And as for what he talks of our being in other mens preferments, we took our Labours indeed for preferment, but not our maintenance; and those that are now Conformists, as well as the Nonconformists, were formerly in sequestrations; and some were out; and others (where the old sequestered Incumbents were dead) were settled by Law long before the time of silencing. And would not covetousness rather have persuaded them all to conform and take new Livings, than to leave all. Is it possible for an English man to think that we live more plenteously upon our Neighbours charity, than the Conformists do upon their Dignities, Tithes, and Charity together, even such as live in the houses and favour of the Nobles and great men of the Land? Doth he not here much commend the charity of those that are for the Nonconformists, before he is aware, in comparison of others? But the Reader shall know the truth of this anon.