The Defense of the Nonconformists Plea for Grace, Part · Chapter 1
CHAP. I.
§ 1. DEar Brother, I have diligently read and considered your Book, and think it my duty to give a short Account of the Effect.
I have reproved many that blame you for not telling me first of it, and knowing what I could say to it, before you ventured to publish it; 1. Because of our true Love and Acquaintance: 2. Because a man should be willing to try and hear the utmost, before he engage too deep: 3. Because if you mistake, it is many and heinous sins that you may be guilty of, by hardening multitudes in impenitency. To which I answer then, 1. I consulted not you before I wrote, and why then must you needs consult me. 2. A wise man can conjecture what may be said against him, without asking. 3. You might suspect some hinderance to that which you judged a necessary duty. 4. You have heard and read what the Non-Conformists say, as I did what the Conformists say, without any further consultation.
But I am most impatient with them that suspect your intention and design, and do hereby profess to them that know you not so well as I do, that I do from my heart believe you to be a better man than my self, of good judgment in other things, of greater meekness, patience, humility and self-denyal; and do verily believe that your End was to promote Christian Love and Concord (which was mine.) And as I wrote to cure mens uncharitable thoughts of the Non-Conformists; so did you, to cure or prevent mens thinking worse of the Conformists than they do deserve; an End that's good and necessary.
§ 2. But our measures of understanding are so various, that it is no wonder that we differ about the means: And therefore lest I should be guilty, 1. Of deserting the Truth, and Cause of Righteousness. 2. And of the loss of the Plaister which I made to heal the ulcerated minds of the haters and reproachers, and silencers of them that deserve it not. 3. And of the sin of such as be drawn by your Book to that which hath the aggravations which I named, and fear my self, I shall take the freedom of telling you and others, my thoughts of your performance in your Book.
§ 3. I. I perceive it is not your design to draw any man into so much Conformity as will procure him allowance in the Publick approved Ministry: And then what the better will the Church be for his change in all the rest, while one point of Non-conformity will keep him out as well as a hundred? For 1. You profess that you cannot justifie all, though you fain would. 2. You over-pass some in your defence. 3. You call your self a Non-conforming Conformist. 4. You are fain to fly from your Country, being an excommunicate man, and to live in a poor condition among strangers, to keep out of the Goal, to avoid the Writ de excommunicato capiendo; and yet you lived under the Worthy and Learned Bishop Pearson, accounted one of the most moderate and best in England. And what good would so much Conformity do the Church? Can we serve them in a Prison any better than Non-Conformists may? But let us consider of your Defence it self.
§ 4. II. You would have your Reader have my Book before him, and you profess to answer it; and yet you profess so far to lay it by your self, as 1. To omit answering a great part of it, especially which justifieth our Preaching and Assemblies (yea I think you plead for them;) and my large Answer to the Charge of Schism you seem to approve, which we accept, and so that is no part of our Controversie.
§ 5. 2. But you also avoid the Defence of the Corporation Declaration, which is a matter of so great importance to all the Cities and Corporations of England, as perhaps may prove more considerable than the silencing of a thousand of the best Preachers among us for Non-conformity. But I blame you not for not doing more than you are able.
§ 6. 3. But why did you avoid the Order of my Book's Objections? and also the answering of any chief intimated reasons (while yet I did but intimate some few disclaiming argumentations?) why do you tell us, that you take them as you remember them, without the Book, and satisfie your own conscience, while you seem to answer the Book? And what drew you to begin with Reordination (which none of the Antient Non-Conformists are put upon?) But your disclaiming to defend the Oxford-Oath, and your profession that some part of the Subscriptions and Declarations by the Law enjoyned to Ministers, you never made your self, doth bid us to believe you, that it is to draw men to think mildly of conscientious Conformists, that you write, if not to judge Conformity lawful, and a duty in case of silencing, &c.] And I doubt not but you will so far prevail.
But when you tell us of a Noble man impeached of Treason, that made it his business only to put by that charge, you may remember that when the Great and Good Duke of Sommerset had so done, and the shout was made for his being found not guilty, he was yet (though the King's Uncle and Protector) beheaded as a Felon: Such a justification doth little good. And you say truly [I am not to yield to the smallest Sin to save my Life.]
§ 7. I see not how this agreeth with what you say, After that Mens weakness and ignorance may make it their duty of two perceived Sins proposed to them, to take the safer side, and that is to avoid the greater.] Answ. Doubtless it is a gross Contradiction to say, It is a duty to choose, or not avoid the least Sin: For that is no Sin which a Man is not bound to avoid; and undoubtedly when two Sins are proposed, every Man is bound to avoid both, though not as equal with equal Zeal: And God never necessitateth Man to choose either, or not to avoid both: But if our own Badness disable us from avoiding both, we must be most careful to avoid the greater. I cannot pray without sinful dulness, or imperfection of Faith: But I must rather avoid a total Omission than imperfect performance, for all the Faults are eminently in this. No Sin is to be done on pretence of avoiding a greater Sin: But sometime the avoiding of a great Sin, may make another thing (e.g. the omission of that which else would have been a Duty) to be then no Sin, that else would have been a Sin. Negative Commands bind ad semper.
§ 8. You say, If the Non-conformist err, it is on many accounts a safe Error, because it is confessedly a refusal to Subscribe and Conform to a number of things in their own nature indifferent: Rigid Conformists confess them to be but Trifles comparatively, the Church might be without them and yet do well: And Moderate Conformists confess them to be burdensom, and the Church might be and do better without them, or if they were left to each Man's choice and will. Answ. But if we prove them far from indifferent, Non-conformity will prove a necessary and great Duty: However, I doubt the Imposers will give you as little thanks for this description of the Case, as they do us for Non-conformity▪ Specially when you add that for this, [We are thought Seditious, Factious, Schismatical, worthy to be Silenced, Imprisoned, Anathematized, and used as Intolerable.] They will not love the Glass that sheweth them such a Face as you dislikingly describe.
Especially when you tell them that you [Are satisfied that it is in it self a great and dreadful Sin, to Silence the Non-conformists, and do by them as hath been for these many Years.] And [Blame those loose Conscienced Men, who think that their Humours, Opinions, Lusts, and proud and imperious Wills, are fit to be the standard of Unity, Uniformity, and Edification to all the Churches.] This is but cold pleading for Conformity.