Selected quad for the lemma: cause_n
Text snippets containing the quad
|
ID |
Title |
Author |
Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication) |
STC |
Words |
Pages |
|
A59546
|
A discourse of conscience. The second part Concerning a doubting conscience.; Discourse concerning conscience. Part 2.
|
Sharp, John, 1645-1714.
|
1688
(1688)
|
Wing S2974; ESTC R221827
|
66,391
|
76
|
Or at least they mightily doubted whether they did or not So that whereas other Christians who were better instructed made no scruple of eating any kind of Food though forbidden by the Law of Moses These men had great Reason to forbear such kind of Meats because they were Perswaded or at least it appeared more probable to them than otherwise that they were bound so to do That this was the Case of those that St. Paul here styles the weak Christians appears from several passages of this Chapter nor I think is it much questioned by any As for what is intimated in the second Verse concerning their abstaining from Flesh altogether and only eating Herbs which would make one think that it was not purely their respect to the Law of Moses but some other thing which made them thus to put a difference between Meat◠because by that Law they were no more tyed from Flesh excepting only Swines-Flesh and a few other sorts than they were from Herbs St. Chrysostome hath well obviated this difficulty in the Account he gives of the Case of those Christians There were saith he several of the Believing Jews who taking themselves to be obliged in Conscience by the Law of Moses even after their Christianity did still retain the Observation of Meats not daring wholly to throw off the Yoak of the Law These now lest they should be found out and reproached by the other Christians for thus abstaining from Swines-Flesh and the like upon account of Conscience chose to eat no Flesh at all but to feed altogether upon Herbs that so this way of living of theirs might pass rather for a kind of Fast or Religious Abstinence than for a Legal Observance Thus St. Chrysostome and to the same purpose Theodoret and Theophylact. But if any one be not satisfied with this Account of that Business but will further contend that St. Paul here doth not only speak to the Case of Jewish Christians who were zealous for Moses's Law but also takes in the Case of some Gentile Christians at that time who upon a Pythagorean Principle they might have entertained were Averse to the eating any kind of Flesh as thinking all such Food to be Unclean They may notwithstanding what I have said enjoy their own Opinion For it is indifferent to our Controversie whether the Persons whose Case is here spoken to were Jews or Gentiles Only thus much appears plainly that the most of them were Jewish Christians who together with their Christianity had a Conscientious regard to the Law of Moses Secondly As for what is meant by Doubting in the Text The word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doth no where either in Scripture or any other Author signifie to Doubt but most usually to Discern or Distinguish or make a Difference as it is frequently used in the New Testament Vid. Matt. XVI 3. Acts XV. 9. 1 Cor. IV. 7. VI. 5. XI 29. The word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is sometimes taken Actively and then it hath the same Signification with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. to make a difference As is plain not only in St. Judes Text here quoted but in St. James Ch. II. 4. Where our English Translation hath indeed very well rendred the Apostles Sense thus Are ye not Partial But if they had truly rendred his Words they must have thus Translated Do ye not make a difference Again sometimes it is taken Passively and then the Signification of it is this to be Divided or Severed or Distinguished And when it is used in this Sense it sometimes happens that the English word Doubting doth conveniently enough express it Doubting being indeed nothing else but a Mans being Divided as to his own mind And accordingly in some places our Translators have thus Englished it though I believe in some of those more proper words might be found out to express its Sense But though in a Few Texts it be thus used in Scripture yet I do not find that any Profane Author did ever use it in this Sense of Doubting And therefore unless there be evident reason I do not know why we should depart from the natural and usual Signification of the Word in the Text we are now upon the Reader may be pleased to take notice that the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which we here translate He that doubteth doth as properly signifie to distinguish or make a difference as to Doubt or Hesitate And thus it is used both by Profane Writers and in Holy Scripture as particularly in the 22d of St. Jude's Epistle And of some have compassion making a difference 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the very word in the Text. Now considering the Apostles Argument in this Chapter is the Case of the Jewish Christians who were divided in their Perswasions about the Legal Observations some making a difference between clean and unclean Meats and such like things and others making none It seems every whit as proper and natural and more suitable to the scope of the Place to take the Word in this Sense in this place rather than in that other according to which it is usually translated So that the Text is thus to be rendred He that maketh a differenee between clean and unclean Meats If he do eat any thing which he judgeth to be unclean he is damned or condemned for so doing because he eateth not of Faith. And so probable is this rendring that our English Translators took care to put it in the Margin of our Bibles as may be seen by every one Nor doth it want good Authority for the Vulgar Latine thus translates the place and not only so but Erasmus Hentenius and generally all the Latine Expositors if we may believe Estius who yet himself interprets it the Common way Indeed I doubt not but this is the true Version of this Word in this Text. However I do not so much stand upon it as to preclude any man from the liberty of taking the other if he likes it better For though this way of rendering doth better serve our Purpose as quite putting an end to the Controversie Yet our Cause doth not so absolutely depend upon it but that we may very well allow of the common Translation as will appear hereafter Thirdly As for the Word Faith which is here used let it be taken notice of that when in the verse before the Text the Apostle speaks of having Faith and in the Text of eating without Faith or not of Faith and that whatsoever is not of Faith is Sin We are not to take Faith here in the large sense as it signifies a Belief in Jesus Christ or an Assent to Gods Revelations particularly those of the Gospel which is the usual Notion of Faith in the New Testament But only for a mans Assent to the Goodness or Lawfulness of any particular Action that he takes in hand So that to have Faith about an Action is to be perswaded that that Action may be Lawfully done in the present
suppose two Men both of them conscious to themselves that as things stand with them they are not in a fit condition so much as to say their Prayers or to perform any other act of Religious Worship as they ought to do Now one of these Men doth upon this account forbear all Prayers both Publick and Private neither using his Closet nor frequenting the Church The other hath such a Sense of what both Natural Religion and Christianity do oblige him to in this matter that he dares not forbear his usual Offices either in Publick or Private though yet he believes he sinfully performs them If the Question now be put which of these two is the better Man or the least Offender I dare say that all men will give their Judgment in favour of the latter though yet no Wise man will think that this Person is to be excused for living at such a rate that he cannot say his Prayers without Sin. This Judgment I say men would pass in this Case and there is a great deal of Reason for it For certainly no indisposition that a man hath contracted of what nature soever will take off from his Obligation to obey the Laws of God. If a man cannot do his Duty so well as he ought he must at least do it as well as he can And therefore let his Circumstances be what they will he must needs be less Criminal in performing a known Duty in the best manner that his Condition will allow him though with many and deserved Reflections upon his own Unworthiness than in wholly omitting or disusing that Duty Because a neglect in the manner of performing a Duty is a less fault than to neglect the Substance of it Let this now that I have said be applyed to our Case and we have an easie resolution of the Question before us viz. That since a greater sin is to be avoided before a less when a man supposes himself to be under a necessity of being guilty of one it is more reasonable that the man we speak of should come to the Sacrament with all his Doubts concerning his unworthiness than that he should customarily and habitually withdraw himself from it because it is a greater sin to do this latter than the former Well but some say How can this consist with St. Paul's Doctrine Who expresly affirms 1 Cor. 11.29 That whoever eateth and drinketh unworthily eateth and drinketh Damnation to himself Can there be any more dreadful sin than that which if a man be guilty of it will actually Damn him Certainly one would think by this that a man runs a much less hazard in not Receiving at all than in venturing to Receive whilst he hath the least Doubt that he Receives unworthily considering the dreadful Consequences of it But to this I briefly answer Such a man as we all along suppose in our Case is in no danger at all of Receiving unworthily in the Sense that St. Paul useth this Term. For the unworthy receiving that he so severely Censures in the Corinthians was their approaching to the Lords Table with so little a sense of what they were about that they made no distinction between the Lords Body and common Food Ibid. v. 29. v. 20 21 22. But under a pretence of meeting for the Celebration of the Lords Supper they used the Church of God as if it was an Eating or Tipling House Some of them Revelling it there to that degree that they went away Drunk from these Religious Assemblies All this appears from the Text. But I hope none among us especially none of those who are so doubtful about their being duly qualified do profane the Sacrament in this manner But further Perhaps the Damnation which St. Paul here denounces is not so frightful as is commonly apprehended For all that he saith if either the Original or the Margin of our English Bibles be consulted will appear to be this He that eateth and drinketh unworthily eateth and drinketh Judgment to himself Meaning hereby in all probability that he who doth thus affront our Lords Institution by making no distinction between the Bread of the Sacrament and common Meat doth by this his profaneness draw severe Judgments of God upon himself For for this cause saith he many are weak and sickly among you Ver. 30. and many are fallen asleep But here is not a word of Everlasting Damnation much less of any mans being put into that State by thus receiving unworthily Unless any man will say that all those who are visited with Gods Judgments in this World are in the State of Damnation as to the next Which is so far from being true that St. Paul in this very place affirms the contrary viz. in the 32. Verse where he tells us That When we are thus judged in this World we are chastened of the Lord that we should not be condemned with the World i. e. with Wicked men in another Life But further Admitting St. Paul in these words to mean Damnation in the usual Sense yet still the utmost they can come to will be no more than this That whosoever eateth and drinketh thus unworthily as the Corinthians did is guilty of a Damnable sin But now there are a great many other Cases besides this of the Sacrament in which a Man is equally guilty of a Damnable Sin if he do not perform his Duty as he ought to do He that Prays or Hears unworthily He that Fasts or gives Alms unworthily In a word He that in any Instance performs the Worship of God or professeth the Christian Religion unworthily I say such a Man according to the Protestant Doctrine may be said to do these things to his own Damnation upon the same account that he is said to Eat and Drink his own Damnation that Communicates unworthily in the Sacrament though indeed not in so high a degree That is to say such a Man is guilty of a Sin that is in its own Nature Damnable and may prove actually so to him unless either by a particular or general Repentance he obtains Gods pardon for it But yet for all this there is no man will for these Reasons think it adviseable to leave off the practice of these Duties but the only Consequence he will draw from hence is that he is so much the more concerned to take care that he perform them as he ought to do But in the last place Let the sin of coming to the Sacrament unworthily be as great and as damnable as we reasonably can suppose it Yet this is that we contend for the sin of totally withdrawing from it is much greater and more damnable So that if he who partakes of it unworthily doth eat and drink Damnation to himself He that partakes not at all is so far from mending the matter that he doth much increase that Damnation The truth of this doth fully appear from what I have before spoke in General concerning the much greater sin of transgressing a known