Questions Between the Conformist and Non-Conformist, Postscript 2
A POSTSCRIPT to the Reverend Dr. STILLINGFLEET.
SIR,
THE former pages were printed off ſooner than I was aware of; but give me leave to add theſe lines to clear my ſelf from that ſin of Schiſm which which you charge me among my Brethren, a little further; ſince I ſtill continue the ſame love and honourable reſpects to you.
Three caſes there are you tell us, p. 213. in which the Sripture allows of Separation, 1. Idolatrous worſhip. 2. Falſe doctrine impoſed. 3. Indifferent things made neceſſary to ſalvation [of this latter one word by and by]. But there are two others wherein Paul gives particular directions, but ſuch as do not amount to ſeparation, viz. 1. Different opinions about meats and drinks, obſervation of Jewiſh Holy-days. In theſe points he adviſes not to cenſure one another, but notwithſtanding this difference, join together as Chriſtians in the duties common to them all. Thus you.
A. Sir, This is very true: accordingly as I meet with Chriſtians of different apprehenſions, Epiſcopal, Presbyterian, Independent, Anabaptiſts (ſome few of which I have found, ſober men, and ſound in all points but that), let theſe men be ſound in the faith, and walk with a Goſpelconverſation, ſubjecting to Church government, though in their different ways, I give the Lords Supper to them all, refuſing communion with none for theſe opinions.
2. But my good Brother, are you not beſide the queſtion? Did they in thoſe duties which were common to them all as Chriſtians, impoſe ſuch things as the Lord never impoſed, as terms of Communion? This is our caſe, both in Prayer, Baptiſm, Lords Supper, Diſcipline, which are duties common to us all; in all theſe you impoſe your own inventions, not our Lords injunctions; ſo did not they.
And what if they would impoſe their Jewiſh Holydays (which yet were once Gods own appointment) upon the Gentiles to obſerve them, who knew they were abrogated? Sir, you impoſe Holydays of mens appointing upon us, which is far worſe; God's Authority is higher than yours.
2. The ſecond thing you mention, is the corrupt lives of men in the Church, &c. where you explain 1 Cor. 5.11. No, not to eat; but Sir, I prefer your Hammond's explication, to which I refer the Reader; ſee his Pararaph and his Notes.
As to that third ground which may warrant Separation, you ſay, viz. The impoſing of things indifferent as neceſſary to our ſalvation.
A. Sir, is our ſalvation all that we ſhould regard? Is not the glory and honour of God a thing to be attended? Is not this glory and honour of his, the firſt thing to be intended in his Worſhip? Is it not his honour when his Soveraignty and Wiſdom alone commands in his Worſhip? In caſe he be deprived of his Worſhip, is this honour to him? Sir, you make your Inventions, though in themſelves indifferent, yet being commanded by mans Authority, to alter in ſome ſort their natures (they are the words of your Canon upon the Croſs) and ſo neceſſary you make them, that without theſe God ſhall have no worſhip at all. Witneſs Barthol mewday.
As to the Liturgy which you impoſe, you tell us, p. 332. you will ſay nothing, Dr. Falkner having ſo well defended it.
A. I know it is imputed to our pride and conceitedneſs of our own gifts, that we uſe it not. Sir, I do profeſs in words of ſobriety, if you, or Dr. Falkner can aſſure me infullibly, that I ſhould be pleaſing to God, and that I ſhould diſcharge my Office as I ought, only by reading Forms of Prayer, I will be as ready to uſe nothing but Forms, as you are ready and reſolute to impoſe them; I would uſe alſo that Form of prayer before my Sermon, which your 55th Canon does command to be uſed before Sermon; and ſo nothing but Forms, which is the ſenſe of your Church. I ſay, may I be but as pleaſing to God. My reaſon is, I obſerve it would very much pleaſe my corrupt, lazy, unbelieving heart. I ſhould not need then to beg of God the preſence of his Spirit to help me as to the matter of prayer; nor need I act my faith and dependance upon him as conſcious of my own inſufficiency, 2 Cor. 3.5. for all my prayer is prepared to a ſyllable. I ſhould not then labour with my proud heart to ſubmit quietly to Gods pleaſure, though he doth ſubſtract, and not afford that preſence ſometimes, which he doth at other times. For here are the ſame words and ſyllables at all times, his abſence or preſence hath no room here. It may be the Friendly Debater that can jeer, I ſee, at Chriſtian experiences, will jeer at me too, becauſe I give this experience of my corrupt heart; but I care not.
As for Dr. Falkner, let but the Queſtion be truly ſtated, and I do not find one Scripture-argument he hath brought that concludes the Queſtion: for his own humane reaſons, I little regard them in divine Worſhip.
As for private Chriſtians, I know your Clergy look on them as the Phariſees did upon the vulgar, Joh. 7.49. but, Sir, I know more of them than you, or Dr. Falkner; plain Mechanicks have I known well Catechiſed, and humble Chriſtians excellent in practical piety, kept their ſtation, did not aſpire to be Preachers, but for gifts of prayer, few Clergy-men muſt come near them. I profeſs I fall ſhort of them. I have known ſome of them when they did keep their Faſts (as they did often) they divided the work of Prayer; the firſt began with Confeſſion; the ſecond went on with Petition for themſelves; the third Petition for Church and Kingdom, &c. the fourth. Thanksgiving, every one kept to his own part, and did not meddle with anothers part. Such excellent matter ſo compacted without Tautologies, each of them for a good time, about an hour, if not more apiece, to the wondering of thoſe who joyned with them. Such anſwers of prayer I have known to others, that they have praiſed God for aſſurance that he had heard them before they roſe off their knees, and at that time it was done; a thing of very great conſequence, but heard not of it till two days after. Here was no reading of Liturgies; theſe were old Jacobs ſons, could wreſtle and prevail with God; and yet muſt be puniſhed if they came not to Church, and ſet above an hour in the cold to hear a Miniſter read that which their boys could do at home: and bleſſed be God that England in this dark day hath many thouſands of ſuch plain, but praying Chriſtians, however deſpiſed and puniſhed.
As for that Queſtion, Whether every particular Congregation makes a particular Church? which you deny, and oppoſe the Diſſenters, p. 234. &c. I pray, Sir, why do you not anſwer Mr. Alſop's Text which he brings p. 45. from 1 Cor. 11.18. compared with 20. that Text deſerves an anſwer; and till that be done, they are not confuted; you have left out the ſtrongeſt Argument.
Sir, you muſt ſtate the Queſtion a little cloſer, elſe you will not carry it. I doubt not but there may be one particular Congregation which may be inveſted with the power, and execute all the power of the keys, and I think that is a Church. For inſtance, take your own Congregation, and a few more in London, where four or five thouſand meet to worſhip God, ſo large are your places, with Galleries alſo. I would ſuppoſe in ſuch a Congregation there would be required four Teaching Elders, four Ruling Elders (Sir, I muſt own that Officer, though I think there hath been an error in aſſigning him that power which is not due to him) and four Deacons. Let all theſe Officers ply their work as hard as they will, I doubt not but they will find their hands full and hearts full too, unleſs the Four thouſand be the better Chriſtians. But Sir, will you deny this Congregation to be ſuch a Church as we read of in the Goſpel, compleat as to exerciſe of all the power of the keys? I am ſure you will not.
As for your Reaſon for Epiſcopal Government [another ground of difference between us] which you give us in your Preface, pag. 5. quoting Mr. Noyes of New-England in your Treatiſe, pag. 234. agreeing with you, viz. It is hard to perſwade conſidering men, that the Christian Church ſhould degenerate ſo ſoon, ſo unanimouſly, ſo univerſally, &c.—Mr. Noyes— Would not Elders, ſo many knowing men, at leaſt ſome of them have contended for Truth, wherein their own Liberties were ſo much intereſſed? Aerius his oppoſing of Biſhops ſo long after their riſe and ſtanding, is inconſiderable, &c.
Sir, much here might be ſaid, but I leave it to thoſe, with whom you have to deal; as for Mr. Noyes, I know him very well, and know what may cauſe him to write for Epiſcopal Government. That foreign (bear with my words, for I am ſure it is contrary to Scripture and Reaſon) of the Congregational men, That the Fraternity (or Plebs) is the firſt ſubject of the power of the keys, have made ſuch work in Congregational Churches to my knowledg, that their Elders have felt the need of that principle, and made them to think again.
But good Brother, what Epiſcopacy is it you mean? if you mean only Epiſcopus Praeſes, I am of your opinion, it was the government in the Apoſtles time when Elders in a particular Church were multiplied: And if we would but exerciſe more meekneſs and patience one with another, Conſult the Scriptures more attentively, we ſhall find that the true Government and Conſtitution of the Church takes in ſomthing of Epiſcopacy, ſomthing of Presbytery, ſomething of Independency.
But Sir, if you mean Epiſcopus Princeps, (which is our Caſe) one that hath a Superiority of power above Presbyters, with which theſe muſt not meddle, and this Biſhop ſuch large Dioceſs as ours are, and this Biſhop alſo the Sole Paſtor over the Dioceſs, as Biſhop Morley checking Mr. Baxter, tells him, that the Biſhop of Worceſter, and not Mr. Baxter, is Paſtor of Kidderminſter, as well as of all other Parochial Churches in that Dioceſs, pag. 2. Sir, this Epiſcopacy you and Mr. Noyes have to prove, that it was ever in the Apoſtles time, or of Chriſts Inſtitution, for this we utterly deny.
The Preſidential Epiſcopacy (as I may term it) laſted, as it is conceived by Learned men, till the middle of the ſecond Century, or towards the end of it: your ſelf does not deny it. Iren. pag. 275, 276.
But for this Princely Epiſcopacy, when that began to be ſet up, then began the Degeneracy of the Apoſtolical Government.
Though Mr. Noyes makes little of Aerius, yet Medina tells the world that Jerome, Auſtin, Ambroſe, Sedulius, Primaſius, Chryſoſtom, Theodore, Theophilacct, were all of Aerins his judgment: and you ſay Medinas judgment will prove true, Iren. 276. So ſay Biſhop Jewel and Learned Whitaker. Quam Epiphanius frigidiſſimis rationibus refellit, ſaith Whitaker, Tom. 1. pag. 149.
As for their Dioceſſes, beſide what I have ſaid before, you tell us they were not very large, ſince all the Pariſhes could communicate on the ſame day with what was ſent from the Cathedral Church. Iren. pag. 370. Sure I am what you plead for now, does not agree with the laſt Paragraph of your Irenicum, where you were nearer the Truth.
How they ſhould come to degenerate ſo ſoon, is eaſily underſtood if we believe the 2 Theſ. 2, 3, 4, and 7. ver. and the 17. Chap. of the Revelation. If poſitâ permiſſione infallibiliter ſequitur quod permittitur, which I am ſure is true; then it is as true, if the Spirit foretels what ſhall come to paſs, that muſt come to paſs. good Auſtni, good Cyprian, and other good Biſhops, by their Superiority of power and large Dioceſſes, did prepare the way for wicked Boniface the third, and he made the Catholick Church his Dioceſs: it was impoſſible for him elſe to come there, had the Churches kept to the Apoſtolical Government.
That Counſel and prediction of God was ſecretly and ſeverely brought about by men. This was once your your Opinion, Ire. pag. 197 198.Though the Elders had equal power from Chriſt, yet being it was to be exerciſed but in a co-ordinate way with others, you tell us they might devolve the exerciſe of their power to others, Iren. 276. and Dr. Templer tells us, there is a greater probability of an Ʋnion of Judgment, when all within a certain precinct lie under an obligation to be determined by the reaſon of One, &c. when there is only matter of Right and Liberty, which require care, pains, watch, but no profit or gain, come into the Purſe (as here) we can eaſily, and readily liſten to Reaſon that may take us off from Duty, and part with that Right which hath no profit, but only pains annexed to it.
FINIS.
End of the text · Giles Firmin, Questions Between the Conformist and Non-Conformist (1681)