DIFFICULTIES IN THE FRENCH PROTESTANT CHURCH, NEW-YORK. [The subjoined Papers belong to the collection beginning at p. 281 of this Vol. They are extracted from a pamphlet without title, of 34 pages, small 4to. printed by Wm. Bradford in New-York, and purchased for the State Library only quite recently.] MR. LEWIS ROU'S THIRD MEMORIAL, Containing some short Remarks upon the Answer of the Gentlemen of the French Consistory, to the Petition presented to his Excellency in Council, by several Heads of Families of the French Church in New-York. It is impossible to take notice of all the Absurdities, Untruths, Mistakes, Shifts, Evasions and things foreign to the purpose, with the other Defects and Imperfections which are obvious in the Answer made by Mr. Moulinars and the rest of his Consistory to the Petition presented to his Excellency and the honourable Council of this Province, by several Heads of families of our Church. Whoever would undertake to answer every thing exactly which that long Writing containeth, must compose a large Volume, and in so doing, would only draw this matter needlessly into length, which is perhaps the design of the Answerers. For which Reason it will be sufficient to make some particular observations. The 1st, and principal is, That all what they alledge in favour of their Rights and extraordinary Priviledges, and all that they object against me for to blacken me, and misrepresent me to his Excellency and the Council, all the venomous strokes scattered here and there in their Answer; all this, I say, is nothing to the purpose, and doth not in the least relate to the true Point in dispute between us; all this doth in no sort justify their irregular and unjust Proceeding against me, nor shew how they have been sufficiently authorized, or what Reason and lawful Power they had to turn me out of my office, and to refuse to pay me my Salary. In short, all this doth not at all, or very little concern the Petition presented by the heads of Families to the Governour in Council, nor the acts of Opposition and Protestation annexed to it; nor even that invidious Act which those Gentlemen passed in the Consistory against me, on the 20th of September last. Since then the Artifice of the Answerers hath been to turn off the attention of his Excellency and his Council from the true state of the Question, to run upon considerations foreign and remote from the Subject, and into Cavils on matters which have not given occasion to our last Difference; I think therefore that it is proper and necessary to bring them back to an enquiry into the matter of Fact itself, which we are about, and which is expressed in the Petition of the heads of Families of our Church, and in the two Papers thereto annexed. This Petition was presented on account of a certain Instrument passed and signed against me, on the 20th of last September, and on account of the unhappy Consequences, which it hath since had with Relation to our Church Now as this Instrument, according to the Copy which it hath been thought fit to give me of it, containeth the Reasons and Motives which have engaged the present Consistory to undertake to turn me out of my office, and to take all the Steps which those Gentlemen have taken in pursuance thereof; it would have been right to have produced this Instrument, such as it is, genuin or not, before his Excellency and the honourable Council, that they might the better judge of the bottom of the Dispute, and not suffer themselves to be amused by the subtle Evasions of the Answerers, who will often attempt to impose upon them, if they are not upon their guard, as it may be expected from persons of their Wisdom and Justice. As this hath not yet been done, and is necessary to explain thro'ly, I desire earnestly, & before anything else, that this Instrument may be produced, with the Answers that I have already prepared, aud put into the hands of Mr Alexander my Attorney. 2. My second observation is on what they alledge, p. 2, in order to declare the Jurisdiction of his Excellency and the Council, in this Affair, or to divert them from taking the trouble of interposing & intermeddling in our Differences, That "they acknowledge no Jurisdiction in any Civil "Court within this Province, over the private Affairs of their Church, merely Consistorial, and CC amongst themselves, &c." Indeed! this is astonishing, and what could not have been expected. Here are, if I am not mistaken, the true Principles of the Independents, (b) so expressly condemned in our Discipline of France (See among the Observations upon the 6th Chap. the Regulation, made at the Synod of Clarenton, in 1644, against those Sectaries, pag. 199 and 200, of the Editio in duocim. & p. 118. in 4 to) and Tom. 2. in folio, p. 467. Here is a Principle capable of throwing us into Confusion and Disorder, as we see already by experience. Here is what openeth a door to all sorts of Irregularities and Extravagancies, and absolutely takes away all means of applying a Remedy. Here is a Maxim, not only very prejudicial to God's Church, but likewise very dangerous to the State, since it is easie to conceive the dreadful Consequences that will follow from it, if it took place. In fine, Here is a Principle which makes the Lot and Condition of a Minister persecuted among us, and in these Countries not only unhappy and dangerous, but even desperate, and without Relief. To Refute this abominable Principle, and to shew how false it is, and how contrary to the true Principles of Religion and the Constitution of our Churches, I need only Refer to the 46 Article of the first Chapter of our Discipline, compared with the 39 & 40 Articles of our Confession of Faith, & especially with all our Books of Divinity, as for instance, that of Mr Pictet, Professor at Geneva, see his 2d Tom. p. 476, 477, 478, where he treats this Question at length. Here also we may add the Scripture itself, see Rom. 13. v. 1, 2. 1 Pet. 2, 13, 14, 15, etc. My Third Observation is on what they are continually alledging concerning their Freedom and Liberty Saving and Reserving to our selves now and at all times, the free use and exercise of that Liberty of Conscience belonging and appertaining to the French Reformed Churches &c. Our Congregation which is made up of Members altogether free and voluntary, and under no manner of Compulsion and Restraint, &c., p. 2. Our Foundation is laid upon Freedom and Liberty of Conscience, &c. pag. 4. But what! Is not this Privilege of Freedom and Liberty which they brag of, as much for Us as for Them? Have not we the same Right with them? And if 20 or 30 Persons, as they are, have a Title to it, Hath not the rest of the Church, which makes up, by much, the Majority, the same Title, with more Reason? And why then would they deprive the others of it? Why would they make use of that Liberty, which they enjoy only by the Bounty and Permission of the Government, under which we live, to oppress their Ministers and Brothers, without Cause, to the great Scandal of the Inhabitants of different nations who surround us, and even of the Jews, who shew more humanity, in this Case, than they? Why will they make use of it, to give the Law to the whole Church, and to govern it Arbitrarily, as if they were Lords over God's Heritage? See their passage out of the first Epistle St. Peter, Chap. 5. v. 3. Why did they make use of it to shut up the Church, as they did, on the 23d of September last, and to deny me the Liberty of performing there the ordinary Service of Prayer, and to deny the rest of the People the Liberty of assembling (b) Yea, of the Papists themselves, see Fascicul, Epist. pag. 181, et 30, and Syn. Purior. Theol. p. m. 754, n. 21, &c., and Tur. Theol. Elen. T. 3, p. 353. 4. n. 2. themselves there? Why do they make use of it still, with Obstinacy, to deprive above sixty or eighty Families, who think themselves edified by my Ministry, to deprive them, I say, of the Instructions and spiritual Comforts, and, in short, of all the Service of a Minister, whose Return they demand, and who belongs to them, as well as to the others, and whom they can Re-estate when they please? I know these Gentlemen are free, but only let them take care not to use their Liberty for a Cloak of Maliciousness. It is St. Peter to whom they refer me, I don't know why, who gives them this warning, see 1 Epist. ch. 2. v. 16. 4. Among their pretences to Liberty and Freedom, they lay a stress particularly on this, That "in the enjoyment of that Liberty, or rather dispensation or Toleration, their method and Rule "(meaning the French Refugees) was to make an Agreement with their Pastors and Ministers (that "is to say) each Consistory for every particular Congregation, voluntarily and freely united together, "and entred into an Agreement with their Pastor and Minister upon a certain special mutual Con"tract, which when either Party failed in Performance of their part of that Contract, the other "was at liberty, and freed there-from on the other part, and this no ways regarded by the Civil "Government, who took care only, &c. This is what I absolutely deny, and what they cannot prove. There is not one word said of it in any of the Agreements or Contracts which have been made with me and Mr. Moulinars, nor in those of any of our Churches with their Ministers. If, however they pretend that such a Clause ought to be pre-supposed, I say, that this can't be, unless with such large Restrictions and Limitations as would be no ways of Service to them in the Affair between us. The first of these Limitations is, That if such a Principle ought to be admitted in some sort, it must be supposed likewise, that there is a competent and unsuspected Judge, who may determine between the two Parties, which hath failed and neglected to perform their part of the Contract; For if it is left to each Party to have a Right to decide who is in the Wrong, and so be both Judge and Party in their own Cause, this will bring Confusion and Disorder into the Church, and abolish that Justice and Equity which ought to be the Rule of all Agreements. The second Limitation, is That in case of failure in either Party, regard should be had to the nature and circumstances of such Failure, to judge if they are of sufficient Importance to deserve, that a breach of Contract should follow. For if Pretence is taken from the least failure, or any sort of failure whatsoever, to break a Bargain made between Persons who are bound to one another forever thereby, at this rate, (taking every thing in the utmost strictness) we should open the Door to all sorts of Breaches: All Marriages will be dissolved, all Engagements between Parents and Children, and between Masters & Servants, would be annulled; and to confine my self to the subject which we are upon, there would not be one Minister who could remain six Months peaceably in his Church. For either the Church might complain that the Minister had failed in his Duty, or the Minister might alledge, that the Church had not furnished him with necessaries, or had failed either in Respect or Affection, or Obedience or Submission to him, or had acted contrary to some Article of the Contract made between them, or to some point of Discipline which the Church was engaged to observe, as well as he, and so on, &c. (for I have now touch'd upon the present Case) And hereupon each of the Parties might imagine themselves respectively to have a Right to annul their Bargain, and to provide themselves otherwise; whence a Thousand ill Consequences would follow, easie to be imagined, and very prejudicial to the Quiet, Peace, Edification and Preservation of the Church. Besides, we might by this means abolish the Exercise of Charity, of Christian Toleration, of mutual Forbearance, and of the Forgiveness of Injuries and Faults, &c. We might thus introduce the manner of Turks and Barbarians, and even worse, into all Christian Churches. I should think VOL. III. 89 |