Answer to Stillingfleets Charge of Separation, Letter 2
Dr. Stillingfleet's Anſwer to Mr. Baxter's Letter.
SIR,
I Lately received a Letter from you,§. 1. wherein you complain of my expoſing you to the Magiſtrates and the World, as one guilty of ſinful Separation; whereas I never mentioned your name, when I Preached, and when I Printed the Sermon, I have quoted it ſeveral times againſt Separation.§. 2. But if your meaning he, that you think your ſelf concerned in thoſe practiſes which I charge with that guilt,§. 3. I ſhould have been very glad to have found in your Letter an Anſwer to thoſe Reaſons in my Sermon which moved me to judg as I then did, and ſtill do concerning them, Which in my opinion had been a far more likely way for your Conviction, which you ſeem to deſire in your Letter, than my Anſwering thoſe Queries you propoſe; many of which do very little relate to the matter in debate between us. What you mean by knowing their capacity for whom I preached and wrote, I am not willing to underſtand; but if I have any, the ſingle Queſtion between you and me,§. 4. as to this matter, is, Whether t…e upholding Separate Meetings for Divine Worſhip,§. 6. where the Doctrine ſtabliſhed, and the ſubſtantial parts of Worſhip are acknowledged to be agreable to the Word of God, be a ſinful ſeparation, or not?
By ſeparate Meetings, I mean ſuch as … to a purer way of Worſhip, and are kept up in oppoſition to the legal eſtabliſhment of Religion among us. And now Sir, I pray conſider,
Firſt,§. 7. To what purpoſe I ſhould reſolve the Queries you make concerning our great Pariſhes, ſince,
1. The ſeparate Meetings … kept up in the City, and adjoynen… places,§. 8. as Hackney, Newingten, &c. without any regard to the greatneſs of Pariſhes, or capacity of Churches.
2. You cannot but know, that the People do not go to them, becauſe they cannot find room in Churches,§. 9. but becauſe they look upon the Worſhip of God, as purer there, … our Paroch…l Churches: and moſt of thoſe who frequent them, would not come to the publick Worſhip, were our Churches never ſo great, or our Pariſhes nev… ſo ſmall.
3. The preaching in them is forbidden by Law,§. 10. which the greatneſs or ſmallneſs of our Pariſhes doth not make more or l…ſs … unleſs thoſe who preach in …hem do Conform to the … eſtabliſhed, and ſo I grant you, the Tabe…acle in St. Martin's Pariſh, is …wah … to the Pariſh-Church,§. 11. which before was a ſeparate Meeting. And I wonder a Perſon of your ſegacity ſhould think to ſatisfie your ſelf, or others, by ſuch ſlight evaſions as theſe, which ſcarce any of my Auditors or Readers, how mean ſoever their capa…ies were, but could diſcern the weakneſs of them.
§. 12.Secondly, Others of your Queries relate to the Qualifications and number of the ejected Miniſters, and comparing their Gifts with Ours.
But what is all this to the buſineſs of Separation? unleſs you ſuppoſe that the Goſpel is not preached by VsUs; or whether it be or not, that you are bound to preach it ſtill, and ſo much ſeems to be implied in your 7th Queſtion, viz. That it is a ſacriledge culpably to alienate an Ordained Miniſter vowed to the ſacred Office. And becauſe this comes neareſt to the matter in hand, and ſeems very much to ſtick with you, I ſhall deſire you to reſolve theſe Queries.
1. Whether it be not in the power of thoſe who give Orders in a Chriſtian Church to limit and ſuſpend the Exerciſe of the Miniſterial Function without Sacriledge? If not, how could the Chriſtian Church in its beſt and pureſt times, pretend to reduce Biſhops and Presbyters to a Lay-Communion? of which you may read ſo often in St. Cyprian's Epiſtles. Nay what Church is there to be named, that doth not aſſume this power to it ſelf, without the leaſt ſuſpition of Sacriledge? And it would be very ſtrange, that this Notion of Sacriledge ſhould never be underſtood before.
§. 13.2. Whether Chriſtian Magiſtrates may not juſtly reſtrain thoſe Miniſters from Preaching, who after the experience of former Troubles, do refuſe to renounce thoſe Principles which they judge do naturally tend to involve … again in the like Troubles?
3. To what purpoſe any ſuch Authority is either in Church or State, if thoſe who are legally ſilenced may go on to preach publickly in oppoſition to the eſtabliſhed Laws; only in ſuppoſition that they were wrongfully ejected? This I am certain is contrary to the Doctrine of all the Non-conformiſts of former times,§. 14. as you may ſee in the Book publiſhed in their name by Mr. Rathband, A. D. 1644. p. 41. (beſides what you may find in my Sermon, p. 51. only the Teſtimony of Dr. Gouge ought to be corrected th…, p. 513, 514.) Their words are, if a guiltleſs Perſon put out of his charge by the Churches Authority, may yet continue in it, what proceedings can there be againſt guilty perſons who in their own conceit are always guiltleſs or will at leaſt pretend ſo to be; ſeeing they alſo will be always ready to object againſt the Churches judgment, that they are called of God, and may not therefore give over the execution of their Miniſtry at the will of Man.
§. 25.4. Whether there be the ſame obligation now lying upon Miniſters to preach the Goſpel, in a Nation where the Goſpel is confeſſed to be truly preached, when they are forbidden to do it by the Laws of the Land; as there was upon the Apoſtles to preach it firſt to the World, notwithſtanding …he prohibitions of men?
The diſparity ſeems ſo obvious to me, that I could hardly believe men of underſtanding would alledge the Apoſtles words to juſtifie their preſent practiſes, had I not ſo often ſeen it done. But that the old Non-conformiſts did truly underſtand the diſparity of the caſe, you may ſee it in 3 inſtances in the former Book, which I ſhall refer you to.§. 16.
But you ask one matterial Queſtion in behalf of the People, viz. Are none of our hearers more competent judges than their Accuſers what profiteth their own ſouls? And is this in your judgment, a tolerable Plea for Separation? then there can be no ſuch thing as an unjuſtifiable or ſinful ſeparation; ſince the people are left to be their own judges. For where was any ſeparation made but upon ſuch a pretence? And upon this ground the people may leave you to morrow, and go to Doctor O. and leave him next week and go to the Anabaptiſts, and from them to the Quakers; and ſtill plead that they are more competent judges than their Accuſers, what profiteth their own ſouls.§. 17. No one would think by ſuch Queſtions as theſe, that ever you had written ſo much againſt Separation, and ſpoken ſo freely of the miſchief of it, Thus I have pickt out thoſe Queries, which come neareſt to the matter of Separation, and given a ſuffieient Anſwer to them. But as to the other remaining, concerning the conſtituent regent part of a National Church; the One Rule mentioned by the Apoſtle; and whether you or I have ſtudied longer or to better purpoſe, I have in civility paſſed them over, as no more relating to our buſineſs,§. 18. than determining the Principle of Individuation, is, to the keeping of the ſixth Commandment. And I am reſolved in debate of this nature not to be drawn off by any by-Queries from the main thing in Controverſie. I do not preſs you to any ſpeedy Anſwer, but I deſire you rather to weigh and conſider things impartially, than to give too haſty a Reply. I am neither fond of Controverſie, nor can I deſert ſo juſt and clear a Cauſe as I take this againſt Separation to be; from which I ſhall not be moved by the noiſe and cenſures of weak and injudicious people, who I find (as you formerly obſerved) can leaſt endure to be touched in this matter. If you pleaſe at your leiſure to return an Anſwer to this paper, it ſhall be thankfully received by
SIR, Your faithful Friend and Servant EDWARD STILLINGFLEET.
My ſudden removal into the Country upon the receipt of yours, muſt excuſe my ſending this no ſooner.