10. Rules to Know in What Things We Are to Bear with Our Brethren
Chapter Ten Rules to Know in What Things We Are to Bear with Our Brethren F irst, though men are known to err in judgment in things not fundamental nor destructive, yet if after such knowledge of them, they would keep their judgments to themselves, so as not to hurt others or disturb the peace, most men of moderate spirits, if not all, hold that such men are not to be punished either by Church or State. However, despite this being accepted, the practices of many are against it. They have ways to draw forth men's judgments, even when they wish to conceal them, and when they have drawn them forth, they make them suffer for their judgments in these three ways.
First, by requiring men to subscribe to things which they suspect are against their judgments. They invent Articles which, if put to them, they know will pinch them and draw forth their judgments. When they come to know these judgments, they make them as Articles of Accusation against them. Surely such dealings as these are very harsh.
But you will say, blessed be God we hope we have done with forcing men to subscribe.
Answer: God grant that we never meddle with anything akin to that tyranny; heretofore we groaned under the drawing out of men's judgments and then punishing them for them.
Secondly, if such things are put into oaths, which though a man should not hold in every clause, yet he may be godly and a good subject, and urge such oaths with violence under penalty, what is this but to punish a man for his judgment, though he would keep it to himself?
Thirdly, by proposing questions to men when they come to the choice of or admission to any place of preferment, to draw forth their judgments.
Such questions concern not at all the qualification of men for such places, and then deny them those places either because they are unwilling to answer or if you will insist on having them answer, they discover their judgments different from yours. Is this not making men suffer for their judgments, though they would live peaceably, keeping them to themselves?
Here is not that suffering of brethren that Christ would have.
Secondly, in things controversial and doubtful amongst godly and peaceable men, though there should be a declaration of difference of judgment and some different practice, yet there is to be a forbearance of compulsory violence. We must not be to one another in such things as these are like that giant we read of, who laid upon a bed all he took, and those who were too long he cut even with his bed, and such as were too short he stretched out to the length of it. Verily this is cruelty. God has not made men all of a length nor height; men's parts, gifts, graces differ; men's tempers, apprehensions, educations are various. If there is no suffering one another in things not clear, all the world must needs be quarrelling; there will be strengthening interests, sidings and opposings one another continually
unless not only men's bodies and estates but their very souls also be brought under sordid slavery.
Our brethren of Scotland writing against the tyranny of Prelates when they were under it in that book entitled "English and Popish Ceremonies" have this passage: If the error of conscience is about things unnecessary, then it is tutior pars, the surest and safest way, not to urge men to do that which in their consciences they condemn. And the Ministers of the Protestant Churches in France, giving their judgments "De pace inter
Euangelieos procuranda," How Peace amongst the Protestants in Germany may be had, set forth by Duræns, say thus: Let all matters controversial be brought into such a certain model as may give satisfaction to both parties; and that if it be possible, framed out of the very words of Scripture: and let no man require anything else of his brother. Zanchius in præcep. 4 has this notable speech: That which I say (says he) is diligently to be observed, that those who would stir up Princes to have all people, Kingdoms,
Commonwealths—which not overthrowing the Fundamentals of Religion differ from them in anything—condemned of heresy, excluded from friendship, driven out of their territories; these are no friends (says he) either to their Princes or to the Church of Christ.
Many think they do great service to Christ, the Church and State if they can stir up Magistrates to suppress whatever they conceive are errors; it may be their hearts are upright in the main; they aim at peace but certainly cause much disturbance in Church and State.
Bishop Davenant in a little book entitled "His Exhortation to Brotherly Love Amongst Churches," the ninth chapter has this title: That Brotherly
Communion Between Churches Evangelical Is Not to Be Cut Asunder Because of Diverse Opinions About Questions Controversial. And in the
beginning of the 10th chapter: This is to be premised: The bonds of the brotherly communion of Christian Churches ought not to be dissolved upon every difference of opinions but only for denying or opposing
Fundamentals. Here see the moderation of a Prelate.
Thus Cyprian of old delivered his opinion and practiced accordingly, differing from many of his brethren but withal professes that he meant not to prescribe or give laws to any; that he would not contend with any of his colleagues so as to break divine concord and the peace of our Lord; that he was far from judging or censuring any of his brethren or cutting off from his communion any that were of a different mind; and that in such case none ought to constrain his colleague by tyrannical violence (therein glancing at the violent proceeding of Stephen to whom he wrote) to a necessity of believing or following what he thinks meet. This modesty and charity of Cyprian is very often and very deservedly commended by S. Augustine
(says D. Potter), an Episcopal man.
That this may go down better or at least that men's spirits may be in some measure moderated, take these following considerations.
First, this contention over every difference of opinion and urging our brethren with what we conceive as right in matters of controversy contradicts the purpose of Christ in his administration of differing gifts to his Church and human society. Christ reveals truths in different ways, some more obscurely, some more clearly. Christ could easily have given such gifts to all or revealed all truths so clearly that every person would be able to see every truth. Surely, Christ did not distribute gifts and reveal truths so differently to create continual strife and contention in his Church and in human societies, nor to provoke cruelty towards one another. Rather, it was so there might be the exercise of love, charity, forbearance, meekness, and
long-suffering towards one another. Christ bids us and charges us to be at peace among ourselves.
If we should say, "O Lord Jesus, would you have us be at peace with one another? There are many things in your Word that we and our brethren have different understandings of. For though (blessed be your Name) the great necessary things of salvation are clearly revealed, yet many other things are so obscure to us that through our weakness we cannot all see the same thing. Now, is it your will, O blessed Saviour, that one person who believes they understand the truth (and may indeed be right) compel another to their judgment? And do you also require that we must not bring our judgments to our brethren until your light brings them? How then is it possible we should be at peace with one another?"
Do not all divines say there are some things in Scripture where the elephant may swim and some things where the lamb may wade? Matters of discipline are acknowledged by all not to be revealed with such clarity that truly conscientious, upright, diligent men may not be able to see the mind of Christ in them. And to what end has Christ done this, do you think?
Secondly, compulsion in such matters as we are discussing is to strain justice so high as to make it "summa justitia," which is its degeneration. As physicians say of the utmost degree of health, it is the beginning of sickness. If justice is wound up a peg too high, it breaks. Even if justice were managed by the most holy, wise, self-denying, and meek men on earth, there would still be much danger in winding it up to the highest; for it is administered by men full of infirmities to men full of infirmities.
Therefore, God will not have it strained too high; he would rather have charity be above justice than justice above charity.
This I have from Luther. Though he was a man of a fiery spirit and knew how to contend when there was cause, yet in an epistle he writes to the divines of Nuremberg upon occasion of dissensions among them, he has this passage: "Judgment must serve, not rule over charity; otherwise, it is one of those four things that Solomon says troubles the earth; namely, a servant ruling or the maid heir to her mistress. If therefore you would have peace," he says, "charity must rule over justice; you must not allow justice to rule over charity."
Thirdly, if men go upon this principle, they will be in danger of opposing truth as well as falsehood and compelling others to falsehood as well as to truth. In matters doubtful and controversial among good and peaceable men, it is not easy to have such grounded confidence as to be out of all danger of mistake. There is more confidence needed in something we impose on others than in what we practice ourselves. If something seems rather true than otherwise to us, we may lawfully do it; but this is not enough to justify imposing it on others who cannot see it as truth. In such a case, we need to be very sure.
The weak drizzles of our probabilities, guesses, and opinions are not enough to cause the stream of another man's conscience to stop or even turn its course another way. Especially considering that in such matters we often have misgivings ourselves; indeed, not long ago we were confident that what we now condemn was true, and what we now are ready to impose on others we then did as confidently condemn.
Great care must be taken that when we seek to pluck up tares, we do not also pluck up the wheat. This can be understood concerning things—truths and falsehoods—as well as persons; we may be mistaken in one as well as the other. "Pluck not up the tares." Christ does not forbid casting out wicked
men from the Church; but as Jerome notes, in those countries tares were very similar to wheat. Therefore, take heed, says Christ, what you do in plucking up; when dealing with men whose condition is any way doubtful, be sure they are hypocrites or else do not meddle with them. Do not pluck them up upon every suspicion because you think they are not right; for then you may pluck up wheat as well as tares—they may prove to be godly men.
Therefore, you had better let tares grow; if you only think such men are not right, you are better off letting them remain in the Church than risking plucking up wheat by venturing upon them.
Thus, concerning things good or evil: there are some things apparently evil—they are more like thistles and briars than tares—and we may freely pluck them up. But other things, though perhaps they may prove evil, yet they have some likeness to good so that you can hardly discern whether they are good or evil. Now, says Christ, take heed what you do then; do not out of eagerness to oppose all evil and remove every tare also pluck out some wheat. What if what you oppose with violence as evil proves to be good? You had better let forty tares stand than pluck up one wheat.
Fourthly, if men assume the power to compel others to do whatever they believe is good and to deny or refrain from what they consider evil, they take more authority upon themselves than the Apostles ever did. The governance of the Saints under the Apostles was much milder, sweeter, and gentler than this. The rule the Apostles followed, as stated in Philippians
3:15, was: "Let therefore as many as be perfect be thus minded; and if in anything you are otherwise minded, God shall reveal even this unto you; nevertheless, whereunto we have already attained, let us walk." If anyone should be otherwise minded than I or the other Apostles, God will reveal it
in due time. We will not force him; only let us walk up to what we have attained.
This rule, Zanchy notes, Augustine would repeat a thousand times; and Chrysostome has a good note on this passage. He does not say God will bring them to it if they are otherwise minded, but God will reveal it, highlighting the love and goodness of God to those who are otherwise minded, excusing them that it was not through wickedness but for lack of knowledge that they acted differently. In Acts 15, where the Apostles and Elders were gathered together, the furthest they would go was to lay no other burden but those necessary things. The false teachers put a yoke upon them, which was such a burden that neither they nor their forefathers could bear (verse 10). Yet it was no judicial authority that these had over them; surely the yoke they put upon them, in the judgment of all, was but doctrinal. But for us, say the Apostles, finding what the mind of the Holy
Ghost is, we dare not yoke you as they did; all that we burden you with are these necessary things. No Church officers or Synod can go further than this, but certainly not every matter in controversy among godly and peaceable men can be conceived to be necessary.
Romans 14 is a very useful place for this: "Him that is weak in the faith receive, but not to doubtful disputations; receive him, though he understands not all you do; do not trouble him, neither with nor for doubtful things. One believes he may eat all things; another who is weak eats herbs; let not him that eats despise him that eats not; neither let him that eats not judge him that eats" (verse 5). "One man esteems one day above another; another esteems every day alike; let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind." Upon this, he gives general rules to do all to the glory of God.
All these people were not in the right, for a man not to eat flesh out of
conscience when the thing was not forbidden was certainly a sin; or to make conscience of a holy day which God required not was a sin. Now the Apostle did not come with his authority and say, "I will make you leave off keeping such days," or "You shall eat," or "To abstain thus as you do is evil, and it must not be suffered in you." No, the Apostle lays no apostolic authority upon them but tells them that every man must be fully persuaded in his own mind in what he does; and "Who are you that judges another man's servant? The Lord has received him."
And yet the governors of the Churches in the Primitive times might have stood upon such a principle on much stronger grounds than any governors of the Church now can. There was less reason why they should suffer any difference in opinion or practice among them than why we should suffer differences among us; for they had men among them immediately inspired who could dictate the mind of Christ infallibly; they could tell them the certain meaning of any Scripture. The burden of being under the determinations of such men in points of differences would not have been as great as subjection to any governors now in such cases would be. Our differences are usually about the meaning of such or such Scriptures, in which both sides think they have the right and profess one to another, as in the presence of God, the searcher of all hearts, that if they could but see the meaning of such a Scripture to be so as their brethren believe it is, they would soon agree.
And yet though there were in these Primitive times such means of reconciling differences more than we have, there was much mutual toleration among them; they used no compulsive violence to force those who through weakness differed from them to come up to their judgments or practice. Indeed, it is also more tolerable for Papists not to tolerate any
difference in opinion or practice because first, they believe they have an infallible Judge to decide all controversies. Secondly, they hold implicit faith in the judgment of their clergy to be sufficient warrant to justify the belief or practice of the people or any particular man, and yet they suffer differences in opinions and practices among them. They have their several orders of monks, priests, friars, Jesuits; they differ very much from one another and yet agreeing in the root, they are suffered, supposing those two helps to union; they have an infallible Judge and implicit faith.
We have cause either to admire their moderation in their mutual bearing with one another or at the disquietness and rigidness of spirits among us who cannot bear with far lesser things in their brethren differing from them; for we profess we know no such external infallible Judge upon whom we may depend; neither dare we warrant an implicit faith. We teach men that every man must be persuaded in his own heart; must see the rule of his own actions; must give an account of his own way to God. Now what can men with the most gracious and peaceable spirits you can imagine do in such a case? Before they believe or do what their brethren believe or do, they must see the authority of the Word to ground their faith or actions; and for the present, though sincerely willing to know God's mind and diligently laborious to search it out, yet they cannot see it. And yet according to this sour, rigid principle, they must be forced to it by violence. What is it but to command the full tale of brick to be brought in where no straw can be had?
If this is not so? Straw might be had in Egypt by seeking for it; but here, after the most careful and painful seeking for it, yet it cannot be had.
Fifthly, By this principle, the discovery of much truth will be hindered; it will stifle men's gifts and abilities in arguing and discussing truths. We know fire is sparked by striking the flint. Although differences can be very
distressing, the truth that emerges from them may compensate for the sadness. You cannot create a place for a window to let in light without enduring some trouble; children may think the house is being torn down when the window is being made, but the father knows the benefit that will come from it. He does not complain that the dust and debris lie around the house for a while; the light let in by it will recompense all. The trouble in discussions among brethren of different judgments may seem great, but either you or your posterity may later see cause to bless God for the light that has been or may be let into the churches by this means; men of moderate spirits already bless God. But if, according to this principle, the governors of the churches must suppress whatever they do not perceive as right, to what purpose should there be arguing and discussing of several judgments and several ways?
You might say, those who are the governors, they, or those whom they call to consult with, may argue and discuss, but not others.
Answer: Is this not to deny the church the benefit of the gifts and graces of thousands of others? The church may soon suffer as much prejudice by this as the trouble caused by some differences.
Sixthly, This lays a great temptation to idleness and pride before the guides of the church. Men are naturally inclined to sloth, and might not this principle suggest such a temptation as this: What need do we have to take care or pains to search into truths, to be able to convince gainsayers, to carry things with strength of Scripture and reason, seeing we have power to compel men to yield to us? And men who can do least by reason and Scripture are often strongest in their violence this way; this strength must come in to make up their other weaknesses. But perhaps conscience will not let them compel men immediately; it will tell them they must first seek to
convince men. But because seeking to satisfy other men's consciences in things differing from us is a troublesome work, the temptation that this principle presents may at least prevail thus far: that seeing besides means of conviction by arguing they have another help at hand to keep down error, namely, compulsory violence, making men who differ from them suffer for those things, therefore not to trouble themselves very much in seeking to convince, but for their own ease to rid their hands of such a burdensome work, to cast the trouble and lay heavy burdens upon their brethren. This is easy for them to do, though hard for their brethren to suffer. But the tables may turn one day, wherein the sufferers shall have the greatest ease, and the inflicters the sorest burden. But God forbid that their brethren should lay it upon them, even if it were put into their power to do it.
The temptation to pride is not less, nor are men's hearts less prone to this.
If it prevails, what domineering is there likely to be of one over another, indeed of some few over many? If they judge in things ever so doubtful, all must yield, at least in their profession and practice. This is a great power to be given to men over men in matters of faith and godliness. This is lording it over God's inheritance. It is observable that when the church was in its lowest condition, this power was highest; the power of making canons in doubtful things to bind under penalties. And when this power was lowest, as in the primitive times, then the church was highest.
Seventhly, This will be a means to bring gross ignorance upon the face of the churches and of the world. For first, if men shall not be allowed to profess or practice otherwise than governors in church or state shall determine, they will not take pains to find out the truth themselves but rather accept things implicitly, which is the easiest way. They will think it of little purpose to take pains in examining things when after all is done
they must be bound up at least in their profession and practice to what either is or shall be determined by those who have power of rule in their hands.
Our late prelates' design was to bring in ignorance so they might rule over us with more freedom as they pleased; and in nothing did they drive on this design more than in the practice of this power, which they took upon themselves to command things doubtful and controversial and by violence urge their commands upon people. By which, had their power continued, gross ignorance would soon have spread over the land. From whence has come the gross ignorance of Popery but from the prevailing of this principle? By which people have been brought into such subjection under their guides that they have lost their understanding in matters of religion.
If it be said, But we will take care that those men who shall be consulted with and those who shall have power in their hands to determine shall be wise, understanding, godly men, and then the danger will not be so great.
Answer: Suppose those men who presently have such power have attained the highest measure of knowledge and godliness imaginable on earth; yet people are under this temptation to neglect acquiring knowledge themselves. And it may be more so because those appointed to determine things are so understanding and conscientious. Now these people growing ignorant, when these knowing and godly men who are now in place shall be gone, who shall choose others in their places? I suppose it is the opinion of most of you and of the godly in the kingdom and in all reformed churches that either the body of the church—the people—must choose their officers; or at least that none must be imposed upon them without their consent. Well then, if people through prevailing temptations grow ignorant; is it not likely they will choose such guides and leaders as themselves are? Or if they shall
not choose, yet their negative voice will have such an influence on the choice that it is very probable that in a generation or two blind guides will be brought in, and so the blind leading the blind. And when by this ignorance has prevailed and gained head in the church, there is almost an impossibility ever to get it out again; this brings men into darkness and locks and bolts the doors upon them.
Hence, men by advocating for this principle may unknowingly bring themselves and their descendants into greater bondage than they realize.
Although now, while they hold power in their own hands, things may be well for them, in the future, others may hold the power, and then it may prove detrimental. They may then complain about what they currently advocate for. Even though the current guides of the Church may be good and holy, they or at least their descendants may live to see a change where such a principle, acted upon by different leaders, could oppress them. It is particularly strange that men should advocate for this now when the sores on their necks, caused by previous bondage, are scarcely healed.
Eighthly, there is yet a further danger in this: not only will men neglect truth, but there will be a strong temptation to resist and reject truth. If God begins to illuminate a man's spirit with light that appears to contradict what has been determined as opinion or practice under penalty, the corruption of a man's heart will entice him to turn away from that light. He will avoid letting it into his conscience or heart, lest it prevail and lead him into ways where he is likely to suffer. This has been common in former times; many have turned a blind eye to truths that would have prevented them from conforming because they foresaw the sad consequences if their consciences did not allow them to conform.
But you might say, this supposes that some things will be urged that are contrary to truth, which is uncharitable to suppose.
Answer: Although in fundamental matters there is no fear that godly and able men will err, let charity be stretched to its full extent and reverence for those in authority raised to the utmost height. Yet if they meddle with doubtful and controversial matters among godly and peaceable men and impose them on others, their confidence that they cannot err becomes a ground for great fear that they will indeed err.
Some will acknowledge that some liberty should be granted in doubtful and controversial matters to men who are truly conscientious, godly, and peaceable. But if this is allowed, then men who are not conscientious but of turbulent and corrupt spirits will abuse it.
Answer: We have provided rules to identify those who only pretend to have a conscience. If it does not appear through these or similar means that men are indeed conscientious in their way, we should judge them charitably.
You find it significant if those are not admitted to communion with Christ and his Saints when they profess godliness in word and life, with nothing appearing to the contrary. Why then should you find it significant to tolerate those as conscientious who profess it in words and life, with nothing appearing to the contrary?
Bishop Davenant, in his exhortation to peace previously quoted, offers his opinion thus: Because it belongs only to God to teach the hearts of men, it is our duty always to make the best interpretation of things and presume of everyone where the contrary does not appear by manifest signs that he is kept from assenting by his conscience rather than by obstinacy.
As for the peaceableness of men's dispositions, let it be judged from their behavior in other matters of equal importance, where the temptation to
achieve their own ends is as great or even greater than here. Do they not conduct themselves in as peaceable, gentle, and self-denying a manner as any? Mr. Parker, upon the Cross, cap. 5. sect. 14., pleads for himself and others who could not yield in some things imposed on them when accused of pride, contempt, and unpeaceableness: "What signs," says he, "do men see in us of pride, contempt, unpeaceableness? What are our other works that betray such a disposition? Let it be named where we do not go two miles when commanded to go but one; indeed, whether we do not go as many miles as any shoe of the preparation of the Gospel of peace will carry us. What payment, what pain, what labor, what taxation ever made us murmur? Survey our charges where we have labored; if they are not found to be among the most faithful subjects in the land. We deserve no favor; indeed, there are areas where we stretch our consciences to the utmost to conform and obey in various matters. Are we refractory in other things? As Balaam's Ass said to his Master, 'Have I used to serve thee so at other times?'"
And whereas it is said that some will abuse such liberty as this: It is answered that surely those who are peaceable and conscientious must not be deprived of what sufferance Christ allows them because others who are in the same way are or may prove turbulent and do or may not appear truly conscientious. This is as far beneath the rule of justice as no sufferance in anything conceived erroneous is above it.
Thirdly, whatever errors or misconducts in religion the Church should bear with in men while continuing them in communion as brethren, these the Magistrate should also bear with in men while continuing them in the Kingdom or Commonwealth with the enjoyment of the liberty of subjects.
Grant whatever can possibly be granted to the Magistrate regarding his
power over religion as Custos utriusque tabulae; yet certainly no one can imagine that his charge extends further than that of the Church. He is not to be more exact in his oversight of these matters than the Church is; for whatever power the Magistrate has in these matters, yet especially to the Church are committed the Oracles, Ordinances, and Truths of God. The charge of men's spiritual estate especially belongs to the Church. Now the Church is to bear with men in their infirmities even if they remain ignorant of many things after means used for information. No Church must cast off any from communion except for such things that all Churches of Christ ought to cast them off for. This is generally held by our brethren: if a man is rightly cast out of communion with one Church, he is thereby cast out of all; if this is so, then surely many things must be suffered before proceeding to cast out a member; it must not be for every error or misconduct.
Thus Bishop Davenant in his rules for peace states: Those may not be cut off from communion with particular Churches who remain joined to the Catholic Church.
Indeed,* none is to be cast out of communion except for that which if whole Churches were guilty of we must refuse communion with; indeed with all Churches in the world if they could be supposed so far left by Christ as guilty of the same thing. If this is so when a Church considers casting anyone out of communion it needs caution and should not immediately act because there is something evil in him; and if this caution applies to the Church then much more so does it apply to the civil
Magistrate whose care over a man's spiritual estate is not as immediate or full as that of the Church.
From what has been said, two consequences are clear: First, articles or rules for doctrine or practice in matters of religion to be imposed upon men
should be as few as possible; there is very great danger in unnecessarily multiplying them. This has caused divisions and significant disturbances in the Churches of Christ throughout all ages.
I find an excellent passage in an epistle of Isaac Casaubon to Cardinal Perron, which he wrote in the name of King James by his command. The King, he says, thinks that the things absolutely necessary for salvation are not many. Therefore, His Majesty believes that the shortest way to peace is first by distinguishing necessary things from those that are not necessary and then striving for full agreement in those; but as for things not necessary, let them, he says, be left to Christian liberty. And again, these necessary things are few, and the King considers this distinction to be of such great importance to lessen the controversies that so exceedingly trouble the Church today, that all who study peace should most diligently explain, teach, and urge this.
God has so graciously ordered things for the body that things necessary for life are not many nor costly; the greatest stir in the world is about things not necessary. So it is for the soul.
A second consequence from what has been said is that we see who is most for peace. One professes what he is convinced of as truth and duty; if it is not necessary, he is not to force it upon his brethren, even if he has significant power in the Church or State to back him. The other holds this principle: that whatever he thinks to be a duty, he must force it upon his brethren, not only by the power of the Church but also by calling in the power of the Magistrate to support him in it.
Objection: But do not men in a Congregational way urge upon others their own conceptions and practices according to the power they have, as much as any? For if men will not enter into covenant, if they hold another kind of
government in the Church differing from them, they will not receive them nor communicate with them.
Answer: I wish all our controversy lay here; surely we would soon agree.
Whoever does as you say cannot be justified in doing so. Some men, perhaps through an earnest desire to promote what they conceived to be the mind of Christ, have been too rigid in their dealings with their brethren.
What has been said will show the evil of their practice as well as others'.
As for entering into Covenant, it is true there is such a practice in Congregational Churches; and a Covenant, either explicit or implicit, I think all acknowledge: that is, there must be some agreement to join those together in a body who were not previously joined, to make them part of such a society, to have power in it with others for the choice of officers in this congregation, and to be under the care and charge of those officers more than members of another congregation. What shall join them if not at least some mutual agreement to join in one body for such spiritual ends as Christ has appointed this body for? The very nature of a society that is embodied carries this with it; and any further than this I know none requires as necessary.
Indeed, the more explicit this agreement is, the more it aids edification.
Surely there is no Christian who will not acknowledge that the more one Christian opens his heart to another and binds himself to walk in the ways of Christ with another, the more comfortable it is and helps to edification; and upon this ground do Congregational Churches practice this.
Suppose any godly man shall come and desire to join with any of them but tells them that he cannot yet be convinced by anything he can find in Scripture that this way of covenanting is required. If the Church cannot satisfy such a man (being godly) in their practice yet desires to know
whether he is willing to join with them in all the ordinances of Christ as far as he knows, a mere affirmative to this is a covenant sufficient to join him with them. The more fully he expresses this to them, the more acceptable it would be. Now then, why is there such a noise everywhere in exclamations against Church Covenant when it is nothing but this? How any gracious heart upon due consideration can be against it, I cannot see. And this is not only our present opinion but what we have consistently held forth since we knew anything in that way.
But what do you say to the other? If a man whom you believe is godly yet not convinced of your way of Government but rather thinks the Presbyterian Government to be the way of Christ; would you receive such a man into communion with you?
Answer: If any godly man whose conscience is not satisfied with that way of Government yet is so situated by Providence that he cannot join with those Churches where there is that Government he thinks to be Christ's; and because he desires to enjoy what ordinances of Christ he can, therefore tenders himself to one of these Congregational Churches: Such a man should be received into these ordinances he sees to be Christ's if there is nothing else against him but merely because after all due means used, yet through weakness he cannot see Christ's mind in some other ordinance.
Christ does not lay so much upon the ordinance of Government as to exclude his Saints all their days from all other Church ordinances if through weakness they cannot be convinced of that.
Now let one who is in a Congregational way and cannot see Christ's mind in the Presbyterian Government yet come to one of those Churches and say he would gladly see Christ's mind in all his ways and enjoy all his ordinances but cannot see that a Minister who takes only the charge to feed
by Word and Sacraments one congregation should with others have the charge of ruling a hundred or more; and until he is convinced otherwise, he cannot in his practice acknowledge that Government to be Christ's. Would you yet receive such a one into communion with you in all other Church ordinances? If you would, I make no question then but if we understood one another well and were of quiet spirits, we might live together in peace.
Let not miscarriages in particular men or Churches in things of this nature hinder our peace; what we say ought to be suffered in us, we profess to be our duty to suffer that or anything of the like nature in others. Where there has not been that brotherly and Christian forbearance as ought to be, there has been sin committed against Christ: but let not this hinder brotherly and Christian agreement amongst ourselves or any other Churches of Christ.
Fourthly, evils that are small or uncertain, or come by accident, must rather be endured than any good that is great, certain, and intrinsic should be hindered. We must be cautious that in our zeal to oppose evil, we do not hinder a greater good. If the opposition to evil lies so far out of your reach that you cannot address it without hindering much good, you must be content to let it be.
Lastly, if the evils can only be removed by supernatural means, we must not use violence to remove them. Although God has such authority over us that He may justly punish us for not doing what we are unable to do by natural strength, one man does not have such authority over another. The power that God has given a magistrate is merely for natural help at most, and therefore it can go no further than to help us in a natural way to do what we are able to do by natural power. When it has gone so far, there it must rest. I shall refer the learned to Zanchy upon the fourth comment, where they may see more about this.