Reply to the Dean of St Pauls Reflections on the Rector of Sutton, Notes on letter 1
The First Letter is from Monsieur Le Moyne.
THo I find a Letter of the same Persons formerly published, wherein it is said, he thought himself abused, sundry Passages in his Letter, moderating and regulating the Episcopal Power, being left out (B…as. Vapul. p. 80, 81.) Yet I must not suppose any such thing here, unless I could prove it.
But from what is here published, P. 404. I could not have persuaded my self, that there had been so much as one, which had believed, that a Man could not be of her Communion, without hazarding his own Salvation. —It is a very strange thing to see them come to that Extream, as to believe that a Man cannot be saved in the Church of England. And p. 408. Is it not horrible Impudence, to excommunicate her without Mercy,— for them to imagine that they are the only Men in England—that hold the Truths necessary to Salvation, as they ought to be held?] From hence is it not plain now, that either he understood not the matter of difference betwixt the Conformists, and Non-conformists; or else did here forget it? Had M. Le Moyne consulted and perused your Sermon (which possibly was the Occasion of those Writings that M. de L' Angle seems to condemn unseen, p. 420, 423.) had he only read what you say, p. 21. I will not make the Difference wider than it is,—1. They unanimously confess they find no Fault with the Doctrine of our Church, and can freely subscribe to all the Doctrinal Articles.—Well then, the case is vastly different as to their Separation from us, and our Separation from the Church of Rome—2. They generally yield, That our Parochial Churches are true Churches—They do not deny, That we have all the Essentials of true Churches, true Doctrine, true Sacraments.—3. Many of them declare, that they hold Communion with our Churches to be lawful.] Or had he seen what you write here, p. 95. how all your Answerers agree with you in the Doctrine of the Church of England; and as Dr. Owen says, we are firmly united with you in Confession of the same Faith; had these things been in his Eye, surely, he could not have written at this Rate, as if we thought, we were the only Men in England that held the Truths necessary to Salvation. So I leave you your self to judg, whether M. Le Moyne goes not upon a great Mistake. Sure I am, that either he, or you, have greatly misrepresented us, (as every ordinary Capacity, by comparing what I have here set down, may readily discern.) If what he says of us here be true, what you say must needs be false. Now I do the more willingly appeal to your Iudgment here, touching these things, whereof we are accused, because I know you are expert in the Questions that are amongst us. Say then, Whether ever any such Controversie arose betwixt the Conformists and Non-conformists? Let me hear of one Non-conformist, that ever asserted, That a Man could not be saved in the Communion of the Church of England, or, that no Conformist could be saved. Yet this learned Professor would have them all to be such. As is too plain from that very odious Parallel, which he says (p. 408.) One might make,—betwixt them and the Donatists.—Betwixt them and those of the Roman Communion, who have so good an Opinion of their own Church, that out of her they do not imagine that any one can ever be saved. (As for his comparing them with Pop… Victor, some will smile at it, as more fitly agreeing to others that are for excomunicating Christians, for meer Non-conformity in matters of Ceremonies. And no better will the Comparison hold betwixt them and the Audeans (or Anthropomorphites) as whosoever reads what Antiquity says of them, may perceive. If they were against rich Bishops, that is not to the Point. If our Bishops would be content with their Riches, and quit their claim of Divine Right, (till it can be proved) or not require our Acknowledgment of it, before we believe it, nor impose such things on us, as we are sure, and can prove from what they wrote, the Apostles would never have imposed, whose Successors they pretend to be; then I doubt not we could accord with them. (So that here also he shoots wide.)
And thus alas, by overdoing, he hath hitherto done just nothing for you. I know, Sir, that you to whose Iudgment I here appeal, must needs acquit us from that Vncharitableness we are here charged with. Or we are not the Men he speaks of, we are not arrived to that horrible Impudence to excommunicate all of your Communion without Mercy. We are not like the Donatists, or those of the Roman Communion, not as here we are represented. And so, if Dr. Potter's word …ay be taken, we are to be cleared and acquitted from the charge of Schis…. As he says (Answer to Charity mistaken Sect. 3. p. 75. printed at Oxford 1633.) This clears us from the Imputation of Schism, whose Property it is, (witness the Donatists and Lucif…rians,) to cut off from the Body of Christ, and the hope of Salvation, the Church from which it separates. Can you find any such Separatists amongst those, who y…t remain firmly united to you in the Confession of the same Faith? We differ only (as I said, Rector of Sutton, p. 31.) as to certain (external) accidental Forms, Modes, and Rites, which the Church of England cannot say are necessary, and appear to us as things at least to be suspected▪ and yet they are obtruded and imposed with as much Rigor and Strictness, as if they were most highly necessary. We doubt not yet, but there are sober and truly pious Conformists, whose Consciences do not scruple the Lawfulness of these things. But here I would say, as Dr. Potter (ibid p. 76.) To him who in simplicity of heart believes (them to be lawful) and pracfiseth them, and withal feareth God and worketh Righteousness, to him they shall prove Venial. Such a one shall by the Mercy of God, either be delivered from them, or saved with them. But he that against Faith and Conscience, shall go along with the Stream, to profess and practise them, because they are but little On…s; his Case is dangerous, and witout Repentance desperate. So though the learned Professor compares the present Dissenters (because he knows them not) with the Donatists, I may here borrow an Expression of Chillingworth's (p. 312. §. 111.) Though they did the same Action, yet doing it upon different Grounds, it might in the one merit Applause, (or Approbation) and in the other Condemnation.
And what follows in this Letter, pag. 408. still proves, that he knows not the Men, or their Principles, whom he here condemns. For my part (says he) as much inclined to Toleration as I am, I cannot for all this perswade my self, that it ought to be allowed to those that have so little of it for other Men; and who▪ if they were Masters, would certainly give but bad Quarter to those that depended upon them. To which I shall say but thi…, One would think, they that would have Christ's Army consist of Volunt…rs, and not of press'd Men, (as the Lord of Faulkla…d is for it, pag. 126.) …hey should not be for giving bad Quarter; otherwise it could not be expected, that the Volunteers would come in very freely to them. One would think, Christians could not expect better Quarter from any, than from those, who would have all admitted upon Catholick Terms.
Other Passages in this Letter I am not so concerned in. Otherwise his arguing from Success and Providence, pag. 404. might be questioned. And what is s…id of the Confession and Articles of Faith, p. 40▪ [Can there be any thing more …, than to say, that an Instrument which God hath hertofore …ployed for the Instruction of so many People, for the Consolation of so many good Men, for the Salvation of so many Believers, is now become a destructive and pernicious Thing?] May not the like be truly said of the Ministry of many Non-conformists, both heretofore, and to this present day? Hath not God made them Instruments of the Conversion and Salvation of many Souls? How then is their Ministry become a destructive and pernicious thing?
Further, I am confident, you will not, you cannot say, as he does, p. 406. that for the space of 1500 Years, all the Churches in the World had no other Government, than Episcopal; you have asserted the contrary, (as I said, Rector of Sutton, p. 41.) and I fear not your retracting here.
But it is likely, what he says, pag. 409. will please you. For to speak the Truth, I do not see that their Meetings are of any great Use,— when I was at London,—I went to several of their private Assemblies, to see what way they took for the Instruction … the People, and the preaching of the Word of God. But I profess I was not at all edified by it.
And is this Truth? Where was the Fault then? would be my next Question, (if I had opportunity to speak with him.) By this Passage, it would seem, their Preaching is of no use, if one cannot be at all edified by it. And are such Discourses, as those in the Supplement to the morning Exercise, of no use? And the Lectures in the morning Exercise against Popery, of no use? Were the Labours of such worthy, learned, excellent Men as Ames, Brightman, Broughton, Ball, Bradshaw, Cartwright, Baynes, Cotton, Hooker, Shepherd, Norton, Burroughs, Hildersham, (whose way of preaching, a worthy Conformist lately said he wisht the present Clergy would imitate) Hooker, Dod, Parker, Dr. Drake. Dr. Kendell, Dr. Burgess, &c. and of late, Dr. Tuckney, Dr. Spurstow, Dr. Wilkinson, Dr. Seaman, Dr. Manton, Dr. Goodwin, (I speak of such as are dead, whose Works follow them, and some of which I hope will remain) Dr. Grew, Dr. Bryan, Dr. Staunton, Dr. Temple, Dr. Holmes, and of such as Mr. Calamy, Corbet, Bridges, Rich. and Ioseph Alleyn, Angier, Wadsworth, Wells, Swinock, Newcomen, Caryl, Greenhill, Nalton, Roe, Reyner, Ieans, Truman, A. Iackso…, Thomas Adams, Ant. Burgess, Ralph Robinson, Iohn Gibbons, Gawton, Charnock, Theoph. Gale, &c. Ol. Haywood, I. Shaw, Thomas Vincent, and Matthew Pool, (so well known by his learned and useful Synopsis Critic…) all of no use? Now they rest from their Labours, yet do not many of their Works praise them in the Gates? Did he not consult the Writings of many of the Non-conformists yet living, viz Dr. Iacomb, Dr. Owen, Dr. Bates, Dr. Wilkinson, Dr. Collins, Mr. Ba…ter, Mr. How, Mr. Woodbridge, Mr. Clarkson, Mr. Sam. Cr…dock? But how rare a Preacher must we suppose him to be, who heard one of the most famous Preachers of the Non-conformists in London, and says of what he heard, that it seemed nothing to the purpose? And yet some Conformists have been known to transcribe, and preach some of their Sermons almost verbatim. I hope, such thought them to be of some use. I say not this of all, or the most. Not only such as the friendly Debator would scorn it, but many others that could not satisfy themselves to serve God with that which cost them nothing. But if there are but two such in a County, Two are some. And then will it not follow, that People should not hear them? For it seems, the best Sermons they are known to preach, are of no use.
But a little before these blunt Passages, p. 409. he speaks very right, if his Words be rightly expounded, and applied.—They should do all for a good Agreement; and in the present Conjuncture of Affairs, they should understand that there is nothing but a good Re-union, that can prevent the Evils with which England is threatned.
Thus others at a distance can fore-see Ruine coming upon us by ou… sad Divisions; and yet we that are so near to Ruine, cannot, or will not see it. The good Lord make those sensible of these things, who might do most to promote a good Agreement, and happy Union, and thereby prevent our Ruine and Confusion.
But alas! what can we do here in comparison of you? Id tantum possumus, quod jure possumus. We must not sin against Consciences. Certainly, that could not be a good Agreement, which is made up by Sin. Would others condescend to our Weakness (if they will not have it called Tenderness of Conscience) I say▪ would they condescend, only so far as they might certainly without Sin, where we could not submit without sinning; then I doubt not, a good Agreement would soon follow. And as the Lord of Faulkland, p. 235. I am confident, that all who receive the Scripture for the only Rule, and believe what is there plain to be only necessary, would (if they truly believed what they profess, and were not led aside either by Prejudice or private Ends, or some Popish Relicks of holding what they have long been taught, or following the Authority of some (by them much esteemed) Persons either alive or dead) soon agree in as much as is necessary, and in concluding no Necessity of agreeing in more; there being no doubt, but it would soon appear plainly what is plain. To my understanding, there is more in these few Lines to shew the way to a good Agreement, than in all your Sermon, and this Book, and Letters taken in too. We readily agree with you in all that is necessary; and if you (for your parts) would but conclude there is no necessity of agreeing in more, I cannot see what can hinder a mutual good Agreement.
Pag. 410. And seeing the good of the …tare and Church depends absolutely upon the Union of the People in the Point of Religion, one cannot there press an universal Union too much. But it ought to be procured by good means.
An Vnion in Religion may be without Vniformity in Ceremonies. You will not own it, that you place Religion in these, that they are any parts of Religion. But the pressing of such unnecessary doubtful things upon Men, about which many are and ever will be dissatisfied, seems no good, nor probable means to procure an Vniversal Vnion. That Prudence and Charity (which▪ this Professor afterwards commends, as necessary in this Work) would (in my simple Judgment) direct to other Means and Methods.