Selected quad for the lemma: book_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
book_n	author_n	concern_v	write_v	1,827	5	5.3231	4	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A39389	To en archy: or, An exercitation upon a momentous question in divinity, and case of conscience viz. whether it be lawfull for any person to act contrary to the opinion of his own consicence, formed from arguments that to him appear very probable, though not necessary or demonstrative. Where the opinions of the papists, Vasquez, Sanches, Azonius, &c. are shewed, as also the opinions of some Protestants, viz. Mr. Hooker, Bp Sanderson, Dr. Fulwood, &c. and compared with the opinions of others; the negative part of the question maintained; the unreasonableness of the popish opinions, and some Protestants, for blind obedience, detected; and many other things discoursed. By a Protestant.	Protestant.; Collinges, John, 1623-1690, attributed name.	1675 (1675)	Wing E718; Wing C5314_CANCELLED; ESTC R214929	62,722	96

ΤΟ ' ΕΝ ' ΑΡΧΗ OR An Exercitation UPON A MOMENTOUS QUESTION IN Divinity and Case of Conscience VIZ. Whether it be lawfull for any Person to Act contrary to the Opinion of his own Conscience formed from Arguments that to him appear very Probable though not Necessary or Demonstrative WHERE The Opinions of the Papists Vasquez Sanches Azonius c. are shewed as also the Opinions of some Protestants viz. Mr. Hooker B p Sanderson Dr. Fulwood c. and compared with the Opinions of others The Negative Part of the Question Maintained the Vnreasonableness of the Popish Opinions and some Protestants for Blind Obedience detected and many other things discoursed By a Protestant Cum ergo Opinionem aliquam non ob assensum aliorum sed ob Causas Probabiles pro verâ habes obligatus es in Conscientiâ ne contra eam agas licet Superiores aliud à te exigant donec rationes veriores audias c. Baldvinus in Cas Cons l. 1. cap. 9. Quicquid fit contra Conscientiam peccatum est Sive Conscientia sit Errans sive Opinans sive rectè informata Alsted in Theol. Cas c. 2. n. 2. Nunquam licet contra propriam Opinionem vel certam vel probabilem agere propter aliorum Authoritatem Ames in Cas l. 1. cap. 5. LONDON Printed in the Year 1675. TO THE Christian and Protestant READER Reader THou canst not but think we have been a little sensible of the many Attacques have been made upon our Reputation in the sight of the World representing us as persons hardened with Prejudice blinded with Passion biassed by some false yet plausible Principles which we must not recant Men who have nothing to say for our selves factious seditious ungovernable fit for Gallies c. Insomuch as a late Author tells his Lord That all the Saying and Writing in the World concerning us will be to no purpose nor indeed will it if it be no more nervous than any thing we see in his Book for as to his two Cases he first supposeth That we judge the things required of us lawfull is not this Noble disputing to Begg the Question we would fain have him name us one Non-con of that mind But it was not enough for him to begg it once but in his Case of Scandal he beggs again That those who urge Scandal as an Argument understand by it only Grieving or displeasing some Most ridiculous Can he shew us any Non-con that ever said That indeed he judged the thing Lawfull but because some People would be grieved or angred therefore he would not Conform Ad Populum phaleras It is true the Argument from Scandal is sometimes used but alwayes in that Sence wherein himself judgeth it good That is because by our doing of it supposing any of us do think some thing lawfull yet should we doe it we should be occasion of sin to others probably inducing them to doe it who judge it unlawfull But the truth is take the Argument in this sence it is not valuable not one of us of a thousand thinks the things required Lawfull for those that do so we should advise them to contemn the Scandal because of the Superiours Command In his Second Case he quits himself as well for he beggs again the Question That the suffering Nonconformists would grant him that they do not judge they suffer in the Exercise of True Religion that is surely that they may not presumptuously sin against God Indeed here he endeavours to prove it by a series of Propositions but there he pitifully beggs both his 5th Conclusion and his 6th upon which two all the rest hang. For though it be granted that it belongs to the Magistrate to determine Circumstances in the Worship of God i. e. Circumstances of Action quatenus an humane action whether necessary to it as Time and Place or convenient for it and decent i. e. manifestly so from the Light of Nature and the universal Guise and Custom of the place Yet the Nonconformists never yielded any Power under Heaven a Right to appoint Ceremonies i. e. Circumstances appropriated to the Action as Religious these they say contrary to his third Conclusion are determined in Scripture or if not may be left to liberty contrary to his fourth Conclusion Thus Reader judge how fairly we are dealt with One writes like a Bedlam and rails like a Female out of Billings-gate instead of arguing another comes out like a man of Warr but will not sight unless we will first lay down our Arms grant him the things are lawfull and then he will crow over us at an insufferable rate 'T is time to put an end to these things we have therefore thought fit To revoke this whole Controversie to an Original Question Whether it be lawfull to act against an Opining Conscience If our Brethren will agree with us in the Negative we will joyn Issue with them there Whether we have not probable Arguments to induce us to conclude the things required of us unlawfull or at least to supply what in this point is defective For we think we need ask our liberty for no longer time than till Cotton Ames Gillespy Calderwood Bradshaw and forty more be answered If these Eager Gentlemen be Men and Scholars let them come forth leave railing and misrepresenting our Opinions and take them as we state them and answer strictly If not Silence would tend more to their reputation amongst all intelligent persons than such impertinent Scriblings We have been more willing to speak to this Question because it is the very Foundation of Popery so much feared That it is lawfull for men to act contrary to the Opinions of their own Consciences if other Doctors think it lawfull and necessary if Superiours command it Possess but people of the Brutishness of this Opinion and you have done more to barre out Popery than confuting twenty of their particular Opinions which are but Superstructures upon this Foundation 'T is obliging men to Believe as the Church believes and to doe all they are commanded by Ecclesiastical Superiours without disputing with or hearkning to their own Judgements that must bring Popery into any Nation so full of Knowledge as England is if ever it comes on Other things indeed may bring in Persecution but not Popery and that Persecution will not be of many dayes Seeing therefore the Author of the Cases of Scandal and Persecution thought it worthy of him to lay aside his thoughts of writing against the Papists as he tells us p. 3. of his Introduction to speak against Nonconformists and that when he had no more to say than that Book hath and that upon the advice of so grave a Person as B p Sanderson whom we reverence as better understanding his Learning and candid stating Questions and judicious speaking to them We hope we shall be excused in our Adventure to speak to a Question which while it offers something in our own defence doth manifestly strike at the very root and

our private Opinion it utterly swerveth from that which i● right he understood Divinity a little better And this we think was his last Resolve in the Case If his first Conclusion reach not an Opining Conscience which we are sure it doth if probable Arguments be opposed to Revelation and Demonstrations for then a Moral certainty makes but an Opinion yet we weare sure the Second doth As to both he determines Acting unlawful which is all we contend for § 15. But there is another passage more usually quoted in this Case in a Sermon which that Reverend and Learned man hath on Rom. 14.23 which we will consider though not half so valuable as this 1. Because but in a Sermon where he spake to it collaterally 2. And in a Sermon Preached in his Younger Years But neither can we find any thing there to their purpose for having there determined concerning a Conscience fully Resolved about the unlawfulness of a thing viz. That a Man cannot without sin do the thing so by his Conscience judged unlawful He cometh in the next place to treat of a Mans Duty under a doubting Conscience where we desire the Reader to consider that he either comprehendeth the Opining Conscience under the Notion of the Conscience fully Resolved as one would think by that passage § 25. This is now where the Conscience apparently inclineth one way but say the Scales hang even c. Or else he quite leaps over the Opining Conscience as not so much concerned in his Text. § 25. He manifestly speaks not of it but of such a Conscience as he expresseth himself where the Scales hang even and a Man cannot resolve which way he should take And again § 29. Answering the Objection I cannot do it it is against my Conscience He saith It is not against thy Conscience for doubting is properly an indifferent motion to either part of a Contradiction when the Mind is held in suspence betwixt two ways uncertain which to take when the Scales hang even as I said before in aequilibro This manfiestly is not an Opining Conscience but perfectè dubia a Conscience which perfectly doubteth Now under such a Complexion of Conscience as to some matter of Practice he determineth That if the Liberty of the Agent be determined by a Superiour Power A Man is bound in Conscience to do the thing Commanded This is a very disputable point in Matters where the Soul is concerned but be it so or so it nothing concerns us in the present Debate That Conscience which we are speaking of is not a Conscience hanging betwixt the two contradictory parts of a Practical Proposition but upon Arguments which appear to it very probable though not demonstrative strongly inclining to judge one part unlawful and that the part Commanded and Morally certain of it The Question is Whether this Man can do it or no because he is not as Hooker saith fully and settledly perswaded or because as others say it is not plainly and demonstratively and apparently evil tending to debauch Men in their apprehensions of the God-head c. To this Dr. Sanderson either saith nothing or speaks quite contrary for indeed here the Conscience is repugnant in which Case like a good Protestant Divine he determines quite contrary to our Neotericks § 29. That no Repect nor Circumstance whatsoever can free such an Action from sin § 16. We find a late Casui●t speaking as honestly It is Mr. Fulwood whom the Author of Toleration not to be abused declares himself so much pleased with that he assures us he is much of his Mind and it is in one of the three Books he is in such Love with Entituled Some necessary and seasonable Cases 〈◊〉 126. though he adviseth That in such Cases where things are Commanded which the Inferiour Judgeth unlawful Men should suspect their private Judgments and read and search still yet at last saith he if the thing required appear to thee sinful still Thou art bound to the Peace of thy own Conscience Gods Vice-gerent within thee and thou mayest not Obey How come we then to be Felons de se and Sacrilegious Stealing our selves out of the Ministry when this is plainly the case Nothing could be spoken more truly or like a Divine and it speaks the more honesty in Mr. Fulwood because in saying this he spake against himself kicking down all the good Milk which his Conformable Brethren thought he had given in those three Books § 17. We find another Recent Doctor in a Pamphlet called Pulpit Conceptions Popular deceptions nibbling and but nibbling at this most important Question p. 61. He forms an Objection thus But suppose I should Scruple my Obedience thinking my Superiours impositions to be against the Command of God Why in this case I am Obliged to lay aside my Scruples and to bring such thoughts into Captivity to the Obedience of Christ who hath commanded me to Obey those that have the Rule over me Pulpit Concept p. 61. Right But had we been any of us at this Doctors Elbow who thus dictates we would have told him Doctors this none will deny you but they are not Scruples that are in our way but great Massie stones called Dialectick Arguments yea almost Mill-stones that is we have not o●ly a Jealousie or Suspition or Fear that the thing m●y 〈◊〉 unlawful But we are as sure or it as we can be of any th●●● that it is not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 said in Scripture nor the Object of o●● Sense nor demonstrable from certain and necessary causes Good Doctor speak to the purpose may we Act against the Judgment of our Consciences made up from these or no The Men you deal with in that Boo●●●e many of them Men of great Learning and Reason whose Arguments none in in their wits will think you have Answered in that Book What shall be done in this case Doctor Speak to the point Is there nothing to do but up and ride your pace Where 's the Stirrup we see the Whip but we see not that Scrupulous Doctor you know it is a little stone a thing without the Foot much like an Ipse dixit for an Argument to prove an action Lawful if a Man indeed hath such a thing in his shooe vexing his Foot it is an easie thing for him to pull it out and case himself and run presently But suppose a Man hath the Gout or some intrinsick Humour which Lameth him is it no more than to say up and Run Good Doctor he must be cured first I hope The Divines which you have to deal with have such impediments intrinsick Arguments which maketh the unlawfulness of the things required very probable to them If you will call them Scruples they cannot help that but they are no more of Kin to ●hem than a grain of Sand is to a Mill-stone They are ready 〈◊〉 Argue the Case with you at any fair Barr of any Reformed Church in Europe You have their Arguments Against Set Forms of

ripe for the Will 's Election What shall the Will do Shall it can it notwithstanding this chuse the thing and command the soul to will desire embrace it or the outward Man to do it because it is Commanded If this be not to turn a Man into a Beast to turn the Rational soul out of doors and set a Man with his heels upward and to pervert the Natural Order of the Souls Operations we know not what is § 4. Willany say the Case is here partially represented because under the Circumstance of Superiours Command The Understanding hath also a report to bring in about that Proposition That it is by Divine Precept necessary to Obey Superiours We Answer if the Proposition be laid down so Universal the Understanding must either Deny it or distinguish about it It must therefore be onely laid down thus In all Lawful things it is necessary to obey Superiours Now it hinders not for this is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 this is the Question whether the thing be Lawful or no The Soul judgeth otherwise Now we would gladly know of our Modern Casuists Whether the Law of Nature having obliged the Will to move According to the dictate of the Vnderstanding is be possible that a rational Soul without presumptuous sinning and offering violence to the very Law and Principles of Humane Nature should will chuse command or allow a thing so represented to it as before probably unlawful What we cannot apprehend good I hope we cannot will it for this were to will evil under the Notion o● evil a thing Naturally impossible Now how shall●● judge that good being to take all its Evidence from the ●●●●llect which the understanding judgeth false and naught Will any one say that it is possible that from extrinsecal Arguments such as the Authority and Testimony of Men the Will and Command of Superiours c. it may judge that true and good which from intrinsecal Arguments it judgeth false and naught This is indeed the Jesuites Doctrine Yet they will not allow a Superiours merum imperium a sufficient Topick in the case but as was said before it is justly abominated by all Protestants of what sort size or perswasion soever § 5. Exabundanti if any will be so vain as to say the Soul hath warrant enough to judge the thing probably Lawful because Superiours bave Commanded it when in the mean time from Arguments appearing to it very probable it judgeth it sinful and unlawful We would gladly know from what Principles it should form such a Judgment the Principle must be one of these 1. Either these Superiours are Infallible so am not I in the Exercise of my Reason So inded the Papists hold as to the Pope and so may be justified in their perverse Judgments in this case from that Maxime 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Granting one absurdity a thousand will follow But all Protestants reserve Infallibility from him who is Truth it self and deny it to any Creature 2. It must therefore be this Principle Though Superiours be fallible yet it is better their Judgments though in following them there be a danger of a troubled Conscience and eternal damnation than my own But is it possible an ingenuous Rational Soul should so Judge This being neither sensibly not rationally demonstrable It is impossible that the Soul should apprehend any such thing but upon Revelation It must teerefore as Hooker saith appear to be The will of God and to that as to the highest Reason if it can be shewed Reason Sanctified and Regulated by Religion will submit Aut alas who shall shew us any such Text Ante retro Simoeis stuet c. Will they urge Rom. 13. Let every Soul be subject to the Higher Powers and other Texts of the like import We allow the Scripture we say the matter to be our Duty but we say it must be in things which do not appear to us sinful and wicked this were to set up some higher than the highest Otherwise the Apostles Acts 3. much erred not onely in their Practice but in their Principle too there laid down It is better to obey God than Man In vain had they said that if every Obedience to Man as a Superiour were co nomine Obedience to God will any say But this was where a Magistrate Commanded a thing unlawful How did that appear but by the dictate of their Consciences It indeed now doth otherwise appear to us because the Scripture so represents it since written but how did it appear to them otherwise Why might not the Magistrate have then told them as some now Interpret that revealed will of God to us He that doubteth is damned if he eateth that is except his Superiour Commands ●●m to eat And why might not Nebuchadnezzar have told the three Children It is true God had forbidden them to Worship Graven Images but it must be understood excegt the Magistrate Commanded them so to do But this Objection is too ridiculous to Answer further Let this be enough for our Second Argument § 5. We proceed to a Third Argument which we form thus For any Person to do that in the doing of which he can never have any quiet and peace in his own Conscience is sinful and wicked But for a Man to Act under any Circumstance contrary to the Opinion of his own Conscience is to do that in the doing of which he can never have any quiet and Peace in his own Conscience Ergo. We are much at loss to fancy which Proposition any can be hardy enough to deny Will any deny the Major Surely Charity begins at home and every Man in the first place is bound to keep Quiet within himself if he can Thou art bound to the Peace of thy own Conscience Thou canst not Obey saith Mr. Fulwood in the place before cited a very remarkable Sentence for the Author of the Doctrine of Schism to think upon professing so much oneness of mind with Mr. Fulwood in that Book and certainly he is the greatest Self-destroyer in the World that doth not first look in his Actions to secure the Peace of his Conscience Next throwing a Man's self into Hell the greatest mischief he can do himself is to set his Conscience upon a continual belching in his Face § 6. For the Minor It is as plain for he must have a dull a very dull and lazy Conscience that will let him Act contrary to its Judgment and yet be quiet and not continually tell him thou subjectest thy self to the wrath of God thou sinnest wilfully presumptuously and there is nothing remains for thee but either a quick Repentance a sorrow for what thou hast done and a leaving off to do it any more or a certain dreadful looking for of Divine and fiery Indignation § 7. Will any say why should not a Man's Conscience be as unquiet while a man contrary to the Command of God for Obeying Superiours doth not Obey them The Answer is easie No Law of God Obligeth

them if he Judgeth them in their Circumstances but such as he may do or Omit he is bound to do them or omit them according to the Nature of the Superiours Precept But if the Inferiour Judgeth them unlawful for him to do though this his Judgment be formed but from probable Arguments that is such as to him so appear not from indubitably certain Arguments he cannot Obey but is bound patiently to submit to the penalty imposed upon him for Disobedience So that these Objections are perfectly vain and no incumbrances at all upon our Proposition § 3. But we say It is one thing for us to allow a Power in Superiours to determine us where both we and they agree the thing in its own Nature and cloathed with such Circumstances of a middle and indifferent Nature And quite another thing for us and that as to the things of God too and such things where for doing or not doing the danger of sin and Eternal Damnation lyeth to make him Our Judge what is and what is not Indifferent It is impossible any intelligent Soul should allow the latter to his Superiour without also making him a Judge both of Good and Evil. For Indifferency being a middle betwixt those two extremes there 's no possibility of his being a Judge of it without also determining concerning the extremes And if we could allow this we should as to private Christians use see little need of the Scriptures for the Superiour must Interpret them too or all will come to nothing § 4. Nay we further say that there may be some stresses of Providence as to which the being of Polities and the Preservation of Justice lyes at stake where some things may be Lawful which in Ordinary Cases God will not allow You know saith our Saviour what David did when he was an hungry how he did eat the Shew-bread which was not Lawful for any in Ordinary Cases to eat but for the Priests onely It was a Case of real Necessity to save his Life It would have been a sin both in David upon a lighter pretence to have done it and for the Priest to have suffered it § 5. We have been the more willing to search this business to the bottom because of that andacious Liberty which some have taken either openly to assert or cunningly to insinuate the contrary a thing undoubtedly of as i●l a tendency as can well be imagined leading directly to a Blind Obedience one of the Capital Errors of the Church of Rome and possibly a more sottish and brutish Errour than any other which they have as devesting Man of his Humane Nature and that which is the Mother of most other of their abominable Doctrines any absurdities as Naturally following that first as the Thread follows the Needle If it can be supposed that there may be a Superiour absurd in his Sentiments or Practice which that it may be we need no other Evidence than what the Infallible Choyce it self hath given the wiser part of the World often enough Evidence of § 6. We have been amazed to Observe how tenderly Modern Writers have touched this Question Mr. Hooker indeed as we have before said is peremptory enough against us to that degree as we find none of his Posterity in that thing approving his saying The Author of the Pulpit Conceptions Popular deceptions fairly skips it over telling us what should be done by us if we scruple our Obedience but not a word what we should do if we from probable Arguments judge the thing unlawful Freeman as we shewed before is peremptory enough beyond all Reason or Religion But another writing a Book professedly about Tenderness of Conscience when he comes to Answer the Case of Doubting speaks almost to every thing else but prudently leaves out this Case Others tell us that if the thing Commanded be apparently demonstratively indisputably evil if it tends to debauch us in our Sentiments concerning the God-head c. we must not Obey but if otherwise either they say nothing or else tell us we ought to Obey The Reverend Bishop Sanderson and Mr. Fulwood are the onely two Modern Divines that we have met with daring to state the Case distinctly and speaking to it in the Dialect of Protestants But others in their Writings either shew little of Divines stating the Case falsly and not speaking ad idem Or little of Protestants saying that which no Protestant Divines ever durst say before them § 6. And from hence to every considerate Reader will be inevitably concluded the Reasonableness if not the Necessity of an Indulgence from all Superiours who will think themselves under any Obligation to the Royal Law of Love For as that Law will Oblige them not to suffer sin in their Inferiours Lev. 19.17 So. it will also Oblige them not to lay a stumbling block before them that are weak by which they both sin against Christ 1 Cor. 8.9 10 11 12 13. and do not walk Charitably Rom. 14.15 Nor yet to make them to suffer because they dare not sin For to Act against their Conscience though but Opining is sin For all this Suffering must unquestionably be a Suffering for Righteousness sake for to depart from Iniquity is unquestionably a piece of Righteousness Hence though the Superiour upon the first Account be bound to Oblige his Inferiours by his Civil Sanction to do all that which the Law of God hath made necessary for them to do and to forbear what the same Law hath forbidden otherwise he should suffer sin upon them Yet if he thinks fit to Command other things in Religion which possibly himself and some of his Inferiours Judge not sinful and tendent to some State or Decency but the want of them makes not the Servite indecent or disorderly according to any Light or Law of Nature or the general guise and Custom of the place and many other his Inferiours Judge so far from tendency to Order and Decency that they from Arguments which to them appear very probable judge them sinful and unlawful and so capable of no such Notion how he can possibly exact an Obedience to any such Commands without 1. Either putting his Inferiours upon sin and continual disturbance of their Consciences 2. Or making them Sufferers because they dare not sin against God which is as we said before a species at least of Suffering for Righteousness-sake We must confess our selves which possibly is our weakness not Divines sufficient to understand and should thank any one that could inform us Now betwixt these there lyeth no Medium but a Gracious Indulgence the very Remedy which His Most Excellent Majesty hath suited to this fore Evil. § 7. And here we would have finished our Discourse but for a late Book called The Cases of Scandal and Persecution which yet hath no such depths in it as to ask us long time to sound The Author spends one part of his Book in perswading us to believe what we know none ever doubted viz. That

in Case the thing Commanded us be by us Judged Lawful for that he beggs all along we ought not to forbear doing it because some of our Brethren would be grieved and teachy at it provided our doing of it laid no stumbling-block before them to give them Occasion to sin against God We would fain know what Non-Conformist ever said the contrary Thus Men Exercise themselves in Combates with fancied Enemies for really the Doctor hath none in this Case that ever we heard of The Second Part of his Book comes nearer what we last said and notwithstanding all he saith we do think That it is at least a Mute Case as they say in Law Whether the forcing any to Suffer because he cannot or dare not Act contrary to the Opinion of his Conscience guided by Arguments which to him appear probable be not Persecuting To pass by his other impertinencies allowing him to use a very true Method to try the issue in fixing the Notion of Persecution we there joyn Issue with him § 8. In his 44 p. he tells us Persecution is an Inflicting of outward temporal Evils for the Exercise of true Religion The Genus we agree and think he might have shortned the Description by leaving out Outward and Temporal because no Man can Inflict any other Evils upon his Brother The difference he makes to lye in those words For the Exercise of the True Religion But why might not our Saviours terms have been taken for Righteousness sake Yet if Religion be taken in the larger Notion of it for doing any part of our Duty in which we bounden to towards God we cannot fault the Description but this Description makes but the Major Proposition The Minor must be this But the Outward Temporal Evils Imprisonments Deprivation of Ecclesiastical preferments pecuniary mulcts Slanderings Revilings Reproachful speeches Inflicted upon Non-Conformists are not inflicted upon them for doing any part of that Duty wherein they are bounden to God There are very many Non-Conformists will put the Doctor to prove this and tell him It is a piece of Righteousness a part of true Religion and every Mans bounden Duty toward God not to Act contrary to what his Conscience Gods Vice-gerent in him tells him and that upon Arguments which appear very probable to him is Lawful And in Matters of Gods Worship also to do According to what his Conscience tells him is the Will of God he should do And we take Notice too of an Excellent passage in the Doctors Book p. 45. l. ult penult That God hath as much Right to appoint the way of his Worship as to be Worshipped A passage we are so much in Love with that it is one of our greatest Topicks to prove many things Commanded us probably unlawful Prayer is Worship Praying by Forms or by words formed first in our own Hearts is a way of Worship Now say we God hath as much right to prescribe the way as the Worship and hath done it As every Man hath received the gift saith the Apostle so let him Minister 1. Pet. 4.10 Praying and Preaching are Worship The doing these Acts in a peculiar Habit appropriated to these Actions is a way of Worship And God saith the Doctor hath as much right to appoint the way of his Worship as the Worship The like might be said of the other Ceremonies § 9. But suppose we allow the Doctors Description of Persection The next Question is how we shall know what is True Religion Who shall be the Judge Shall the Scriptures But who shall Interpret the Scriptures as to a Christians private Practice Shall the Superiours Then certainly there was never any Persecution in the World For it were very uncharitable to presume that any Superiour should punish another for the Exercise of what himself owned to be the true Religion We have more Charity for Bonner himself Shall the Inferiour be Judge what is true Religion Then I fear the Doctor will be cast many of them will say they are mischievously and violently Prosecuted Imprisoned Punished Reviled for what they Judge the Exercise of the True Religion § 10. The upshot of this Discourse is that who they be who are truly guilty of Persecuting will not be determined till the Day of Judgment when God shall determine which was the True Religion and whether Men truly ran those hazards because they were afraid of sinning against God In the mean time as to us he is Persecuted who can truly say That he suffers for doing any thing which he thinks he should sin against God if he did not do and for forbearing any thing which he truly ●●●n●s he should sin against God if he should do And we believe that those who thus Suffer though another day they shall be adjudged by God to have been in a mistake and so not Persecuted yet as to what they have done will be Judged guilty of no more than an Humane Infirmity §. 11 We have so much Charity as to believe that that Popish Priest who suffers according to the Law for Seducing If he can truly say that he did believe Gods Word Obliged him to do what he did may properly enough say he is Persecuted but we also believe that God will not Judge so another day and that the Magistrate doth but his Duty because by Gods Law none ought to be endured that entice others to Idolatry But whoso makes another to Suffer because he durst not sin against God Acting contrary to what his Conscience judgeth unlawful from probable Arguments we believe far less excusable because there 's no necessity upon him to lay any such Commands and enforce them by any such penalties But there does lye a necessity of suffering in this Case upon the Inferiour to avoid sinning against his Conscience whether his Conscience be in the right or in the wrong will be determined another day In the mean time he should sin if he should not hearken to it to avoid which he suffers which is so far as he can possibly Judge to suffer for Righteousness sake After the saying of which we think little more need be said to the Doctor 's Book § 12. To Conclude our Discourse upon this Question we have observed in all those almost who have wrote for Conformity great insisting upon the Authority of former and present Churches and the Testimonies of many Divines dead or alive some of which they tell us were Old Non-Conformists And this hath been the general Method of all late Writers almost to pass over all our and our Fore-Fathers Arguments and in Order to make us as odious to the World as they would have us to represent us as singular and differing from the Church in all Ages yea from our selves and our Fore-Fathers c. To what better purpose than this these in artificial Arguments are used we cannot tell unless those that bring them have a little tincture of the Jesuites Doctrine we before shewed at large That extrinsick Arguments may make