AN ANSWER TO THE Dissenters Pleas FOR SEPARATION OR AN ABRIDGMENT OF THE LONDON CASES WHEREIN The Substance of those Books is digested into one Short and Plain Discourse CAMBRIDGE Printed at the University Press for Alexander Bosvile at the Sign of the Dial over against St. Dunstan's Church in Fleet-street 1700. Imprimatur GUL. DAWES Procan HUMF GOWER SS Theol. pro D na Margareta Prof. GUL. SAYWELL Coll. Jes Praefect JA. JOHNSON Coll. Sid. S. Magist THE PREFACE THAT Collection of Cases and other Discourses which was lately written by the most Eminent of the Conforming Clergy to recover Dissenters to the Communion of the Church of England has met with such an Universal Approbation that I need not speak any thing in commendation of it Therefore I shall wave all discourse of that nature and only give a short account of this Abridgment The Collection it self being large and dear it was thought convenient to reduce it to a less Bulk and smaller Price that those Persons who have not either Money to buy or Time to peruse so big a Volume may reap the benefit of it upon easier terms This I presume will justify my Design if I have not fail'd in the prosecution of it I have us'd my best endeavours to avoid obscurity and all those other faults which are often charg'd upon Abridgments and I hope I may venture to say I have omitted nothing that is material tho' the Number of these sheets is not the Sixth part of those that contain the Original For the Learned Authours of the Collection do frequently glance and sometimes Discourse largely upon the same Subject so that by avoiding Repetitions and blending all the Substance together I have much lessen'd the Expence of Money and Time This and some other advantages arise from the Digestion into Chapters which cou'd not have been gain'd if I had made a distinct Abridgment of every single Discourse I hope I have fairly Represented the Sense of my Authours but if I have mistaken or injur'd it in any particular I am sorry for it and do heartily beg Pardon of Them and the Reader The 11 th and 12 th Chapters I am sure are exact for they have receiv'd the A. Bp. of York's own Corrections for which I am obliged to return his Grace my humblest Thanks Other parts I have submitted to the Censure of other worthy Persons to whose Judgment I shall ever pay the greatest Deference but I have reason to suspect my self for what I have receiv'd no Assistance in and therefore I desire the Reader to Correct me when he finds occasion I have follow'd not only my own Opinion but the Directions of several very judicious Persons in the omission of A. Bishop Tillotson's Discourse of Frequent Communion which is wholly foreign to the Design of the Collection The Quotations in the London Edit 1698. which I follow are very badly Printed and therefore if any mistakes of that Nature have crept into this Book I hope they will not be charg'd upon me Many of them appear'd false at first View and many I knew not what to make of but some of them I have ventur'd to Correct God Almighty grant that this weak endeavour may be of some Service at least towards the Cure of those Divisions which have endanger'd the Ruin of the Best Church in the World St. John's Coll. in Cambridge Octob. 2d 1699. Tho. Bennet A Catalogue of those Books the Substance of which is contain'd in this Abridgment 1. ARchbishop Tennison's Argument for Union taken from the true Interest of those Dissenters in England who profess and call themselves Protestants 2. Archbishop Sharp's Discourse concerning Conscience In two parts 3. Bishop Grove's Persuasive to Communion with the Church of England 4. Bishop Patrick's Discourse of Profiting by Sermons 5. Bishop Fowler 's Resolution of this Case of Conscience whether the Church of England's Symbolizing so far as it doth with the Church of Rome makes it unlawful to hold Communion with the Church of England 6. His Defence of the Resolution c. 7. Bishop Williams's Case of Lay-Communion with the Church of England 8. His Case of Indifferent things used in the Worship of God 9. His Vindication of the Case of Indifferent things c. 10. Dr. Hooper's Church of England free from the Imputation of Popery 11. Dr. Sherlock's Resolution of some Cases of Conscience which respect Church-Communion 12. His Letter to Anonymus in Answer to his Three Letters to Dr. Sherlock about Church-Communion 13. Dr. Hicks's Case of Infant-Baptism 14. Dr. Freeman's Case of Mixt-Communion 15. Dr. Hascard's Discourse about Edification 16. Dr. Calamy's Discourse about a Scrupulous Conscience 17. His Considerations about the Case of Scandal or giving offence to Weak Brethren 18. Dr. Scott's Cases of Conscience resolv'd concerning the Lawfulness of joining with Forms of Prayer in Public Worship In two parts 19. Dr. Claget's Answer to the Dissenters Objections against the Common Prayers c. 20. Dr. Resbury's Case of the Cross in Baptism 21. Dr. Cave's Serious Exhortation with some Important Advices relating to the late Cases about Conformity 22. Mr. Evans's Case of Kneeling at the Holy Sacrament The CONTENTS THe Introduction containing an Argument for Union taken from the true Interest of those Dissenters in England who profess and call themselves Protestants pag. 1 CHAP. I. Of the Necessity of living in constant Communion with the Church of England pag. 15 CHAP. II. The use of Indifferent things in the Worship of God no objection against our Communion pag. 31 CHAP. III. Of the Lawfulness and Expediency of Forms of Prayer pag. 48 CHAP. IV. Objections against our Morning and Evening Service and Litany Answer'd pag. 90 CHAP. V. Of Infant-Baptism pag. 103 CHAP. VI. Objections against our Form of Baptism and particularly that of the Sign of the Cross Answer'd pag. 126 CHAP. VII Objections against our Communion-Office and particularly that of Kneeling at the Sacrament Answer'd pag. 135 CHAP. VIII The Objection of our Symbolizing or Agreeing with the Church of Rome Answer'd pag. 171 CHAP. IX The Objection of Mixt-Communion Answer'd pag. 194 CHAP. X. The Pretences of Purer Ordinances and Better Edification among the Dissenters Answer'd pag. 210 CHAP. XI The Pretence of it's being against one's Conscience to join with the Church of England Answer'd pag. 228 CHAP. XII The Pretence of a doubting Conscience Answer'd pag. 249 CHAP. XIII The Pretence of a scrupulous Conscience Answer'd pag. 277 CHAP. XIV The Pretence of Scandal or giving Offence to Weak Brethren Answer'd pag. 292 The Conclusion containing an earnest Persuasive to Communion with the Establish'd Church of England pag. 309 THE INTRODUCTION Containing An ARGUMENT for UNION Taken from the true Interest of those Dissenters in ENGLAND who Profess and call themselves PROTESTANTS 'T IS plain that the ready way to overthrow a Church is first to divide it and that our Dissentions are Divisions properly so call'd How mortal these breaches may at last prove any
according to it Thirdly therefore for the untying this great difficulty I say That the great thing to be attended to in this case of a Man's following a Mistaken Judgment is the faultiness or innocence of the mistake upon which he acts for according as this is so will his guilt in acting according to it be either greater or less or none at all If the mistake be such as an honest minded Man might make if he did his best to understand his duty and wanted means to know it better then we think him innocent and not properly guilty of any sin tho' the action is contrary to God's Law For no Man is obliged to do more than what is in his power to do and whatever a Man is not obliged to do it is no sin in him if he do it not Since he cou'd not understand better his mistake and acting according to his mistake are not sinful The only point is this whether the Man be to be blam'd for his erroneous Conscience or no. If the errour be not his own fault he doth not sin in acting according to it but if he had power and opportunities of informing his Conscience better and yet neglected so to do tho' it was his duty then the Man sins while he acts contrary to God's Law under the mistake and his sin is greater or less in proportion to his negligence Thus you see that God enables all Men to do their duty and that none lie under a necessity of sinning but those who wilfully embracing false Principles fall into sin whether they act according to their Conscience or against it Having now done with the Five Principles of my Discourse I proceed to my first intended business that is to speak to the Case of those that separate from the Communion of the Church of England upon this pretence That it is against their Conscience to join with us in it And that I may clear this point I shall do two things First I shall separate those who can plead Conscience for their Non-Conformity from those that cannot for a great many that pretend Conscience refuse Communion with us upon another Principle Secondly I shall enquire how far this Plea of Conscience when truly made will justify any Dissenter that continues in separation from the Church First then that I may Distinguish the true Pretenders to Conscience from the false ones I shall lay down this proposition that no Man can justly plead Conscience for his separation from the Church of England or say that it is against his Conscience to join in Communion with it unless he is persuaded that he cannot Communicate with us without sinning against God in so doing For God's Law is the only Rule to judge whether an action be a Duty or a Sin or indifferent and Conscience is nothing else but a Man's judgment of an action whether it be a Duty or a Sin or indifferent by that Rule So that a Man cannot be bound in Conscience to do or forbear any action unless he is persuaded that God's Law has commanded or forbidden it and therefore no Man can justly plead Conscience for Non-Conformity unless he is persuaded that God's Law has forbidden him to join with us If it be said that a Man who do's not think our Communion directly sinful may notwithstanding think it his duty to join constantly with others for his greater Edification or the like cause I answer that my proposition still holds because he thinks that he is bound by God's Law to join with others which Law he must not break by leaving them to join with us Again If it be said that a Man who do's not think our Communion unlawful but only doubts of the lawfulness of it may justly plead Conscience for Non-Conformity so long as his doubts remain I answer that if he thinks it a sin to do any thing with a doubting Conscience then he thinks that our Communion is forbidden by God so long as his doubts remain but if he do's not think it a sin to act with a doubting Conscience then it cannot go against his Conscience to join with us So that my proposition remains true that none can justly plead Conscience for Non-Conformity but those who think that they cannot join with us without sin Now since this proposition is so certainly true how many Men's pretences to Conscience for their separating from us are hereby cut off For First those that separate either because they have been disobliged by some Church-Man or to please a Relation or increase their Fortunes or procure or regain a Reputation or for any other worldly consideration cannot plead Conscience for separation Nor Secondly can those Lay-People who are resolv'd to hear their beloved Teachers in Conventicles since they cannot hear them in our Churches and who wou'd join with us if we wou'd suffer those Godly Men to Preach nor Thirdly those who dislike Forms of Prayer Ceremonies c. thinking them not convenient tho' they do not judge them to be sinful nor Fourthly those who separate upon the account of Edification or acquaintance with Persons of another persuasion or because many Godly Persons condemn our way all these I say cannot justly plead Conscience for their separation Because neither fancy nor example can be the Rule of any Man's Conscience but only the Law of God and therefore such Persons cannot justly plead Conscience because they do not think our Communion to be forbidden by God's Law Nor Fifthly can those plead Conscience for their separation who think that our Governours have encroach'd too much upon Christian Liberty and laid too much stress upon indifferent things for suppose the Governour 's be faulty in it yet the Conscience of the Subject is not concern'd so long as the things commanded do not interfere with any Law of God Nor Sixthly can those justly plead Conscience for their separation who can join with us sometimes both in Prayer and the Lord's Supper for if our Communion be sinful with what Conscience do they dare to join in it at all and if it be lawful once it is a duty alwaies But leaving these false pretenders I proceed to the case of those that can justly plead Conscience for their separation or who think it a sin to join with us for I shall consider the case of those that plead a doubting Conscience afterwards in a particular discourse Secondly therefore I shall inquire how far this Plea of Conscience when truly made will justify any Dissenter that continues in separation from the Church For there are many that say they wou'd join with us with all their hearts but they are really persuaded they cannot do it without sin For they think that it is against the command of Christ to use Forms of Prayer the Cross in Baptism kneeling at the Sacrament and the like And surely say they you wou'd not have us join in these practices which we verily believe to be sins They are so well satisfy'd in
they are commanded or forbidden by God's Laws so his doubts concerning them affect his Conscience no otherwise than as God's Law may be transgressed in them So that where a Man apprehends no danger of transgressing God's Law his doubts about an action do not concern his Conscience Thirdly From what has been said 't is easie to perceive the difference between the doubting and the Scrupulous Conscience Every body knows that when we speak of a Resolved Conscience we mean that the Man is satisfy'd whether the action be a Duty or a Sin or indifferent Now the Scrupulous Conscience is a Conscience in some measure Resolved but yet accompanied with a fear of acting according to that resolution The Person is convinced that the thing is fit to be done and has nothing considerable to object nor any new reasons to unsettle him but yet when he comes to act he is troubled with unaccountable fears But the doubting Conscience is quite different and is nothing else but the suspense of a Man's judgment in a question about the Duty or the Sin of an Action occasion'd by the equal or near equal probabilities on both sides The resolv'd Conscience acts chearfully the scrupulous Conscience acts fearfully but the doubtful Conscience is not satisfy'd at all because of the equal appearances of reason on both sides The Man that has either a resolv'd or a scrupulous Conscience passes a judgment on the thing but a doubting Conscience passes no judgment at all for then it wou'd no longer be a doubting Conscience After all it must be acknowledg'd that truly and strictly speaking a doubting Conscience is no Conscience at all For Conscience as we have often said is a Man's mind making a judgment about the morality of his actions but a doubting Conscience wavers and is a Man's mind making no judgment and therefore it is not properly a Conscience And we may as well say an unresolv'd resolution as a Doubting Conscience However to comply with Custom I follow the Common way of speaking II. I proceed now to the Rule of a doubting Conscience in speaking of which I shall shew First what kind of Rule Conscience needs in a doubtful case Secondly what that Rule is First then by the Rule of a doubting Conscience I mean not a Rule by which a Man may resolve all doubts concerning every point so as to doubt no longer about it but a Rule by which he may determine in every doubtful case so as to act with a safe Conscience whether he can get rid of his doubts or not A Rule that determines not whether a thing in general be lawful or no but what I am to do where I doubt of the Lawfulness of the thing For instance the Rule of a doubting Conscience is not to determine whether is be Lawful to play at Cards but what I must do if I doubt of the Lawfulness of playing at Cards Before a Man acts he ought to be satisfy'd that that side of the action he determines himself to is all things consider'd the more fit and reasonable to be chosen but it is absurd to say that no Man must act till he is able to unty all the difficulties and resolve all the doubts that may have been started about the Action For this in many cases is utterly impossible the Person may not have sufficient time or means for the doing it And in such a case a man cannot possibly do better than to get satisfy'd by reason and advice what is fittest for him to do in the present circumstances and to proceed accordingly And this is certainly the the usual way of proceeding among the most conscientious men Thus have I shewn what kind of Rule Conscience needs in a doubtful case Secondly therefore I shall shew what that Rule is first by giving an account of the general Rule it self and then secondly by applying it to the several Heads of doubtful cases 1. First then since a Man never doubts but upon equal appearances of Reason on both sides it is plain that nothing ought to turn the Ballance but greater weight of Reason and therefore the Rule of a doubting Conscience is That in all doubtful cases that side which all things consider'd doth appear more reasonable is to be chosen Some indeed say that in doubtful cases the safer side is to be chosen but I do purposely avoid the expressing it so because the Rule is true or false according as the word safer side is expounded For First if by safer side we mean that side which is more free from danger of sinning I think the Rule will prove rather a Snare than a Guide to a Man's mind For if this Rule be true most Persons do transgress it every day nay the best of men do frequently expose themselves to such dangers of sinning as they might have avoided and this without any reproach from their own Conscience or any censure from other men He that avoids all entertainments is certainly more free from the danger of intemperance than others are and yet when occasion serves no Man makes any great scruple of going to them We are not commanded to avoid all possible danger of sinning but only to avoid all sin when we are in danger For otherwise he that wou'd be Religious must forsake all worldly business and retire to a Cloyster But to come more strictly to the point there are many cases in which the most honest Person do's not think he is obliged to determine himself to that side of the action on which he apprehends there is least danger of sinning For First greater probability will often turn the Ballance against the greater safety Thus if a Man scruple eating Blood and afterwards by discoursing with a Learned Person be satisfy'd that it is far more probable that he may Lawfully eat it than that he is forbidden to eat it I believe most men will think that he may eat it with a quiet Conscience And yet it is certainly more safe not to eat it because many do question whether it be Lawful to do so but all men grant it may be Lawfully forborn Secondly greater temporal advantages will have weight enough with a very honest Man to over-ballance the greater safety Thus if after the strictest inquiry a Man be not satisfy'd that he owes a sum of Money which another demands confidently and with great appearances of Reason there are equal probabilities on both sides If he pay the Money perhaps his circumstances are such that he wrongs his Wife and Children and if he refuse to pay it perhaps he detains another Man's right from him In this case since it is as probable that the demand is unjust as that it is just I believe most men will say that he ought not to prejudice himself and his family till it be either by Law adjudg'd or he have more convincing proofs that he ought to pay it It appears therefore that any Man who is wise as well as good may in many
both in Opinion and Practice touching the Gesture to be us'd at the Lord's Supper Is it to be imagin'd that an Assembly of Learned and Pious Divines met together on purpose to consult how to reform their Churches according to the pure Word of God shou'd thro' weakness and inadvertency overlook an express Command of Christ for the perpetual use of any particular Gesture if any such there had been Or shall we be so uncharitable as to think that all these eminent Churches wilfully past it by and establish'd what was most agreeable to their own fancies contrary to the known Will of God Wou'd they have given liberty to all of their Communion to use several Gestures according to the Custom of their several Churches if our Lord had tied them to observe but one Wou'd they declare as the Dutch Synod doth that what they injoin'd might be alter'd if the good of the Church so requir'd if so be Sitting had been expresly Commanded by our Lord to be us'd by all Christians to the end of the World No undoubtedly they wou'd not we cannot either in Reason or Charity suppose it The true Principle upon which all these Reform'd Churches built and by which they are able to reconcile all this seeming difference in this matter is the very same with that which the Church of England go's by in her Synods and Convocations viz. (d) Vid. Art 34. observat of the French and Dutch Divines on the Harmony of Confessions Edit Geneva 1681. Sect. 14. p. 120. In hoc etiam ritu speaking of Kneeling at the Sacrament suam cuique Ecclesiae libertatem salvam reliquendam arbitramur That as to Rites and Ceremonies of an indifferent nature every National Church has Authority to institute change and abolish them as they in Prudence and Charity shall think most fit and conducive to the setting forth God's Glory the Edification of their People and the Decent and Reverend Administation of the Holy Sacrament Whosoever therefore refuses to receive the Lord's Supper according to the Constitution of the Church of England purely because Kneeling is contrary to the express Command of Christ must condemn the Judgment and Practice of all the Reform'd Churches beyond the Seas who all agree in this That the Gesture in the Act of Receiving is to be reckon'd among things Indifferent and that whether we sit or kneel or stand or Receive walking we transgress no Law of God and consequently they prove my Assertion true That Kneeling is no more contrary to any express Command than any other Gesture because they allow of all as lawful in themselves to be us'd which cannot consist with an express Command for the use of any one Gesture whatsoever Upon the whole matter I think we may certainly conclude that there is not a tittle of a Command in the whole New Testament to oblige us to receive the Lord's Supper in any particular posture and if any be so scrupulous as not to receive it in any other Gesture but what is expresly commanded they must never receive it as long as they live Secondly I shall prove that Kneeling is not a deviation from Christ's example This will appear if we consider 1. that 't is doubtful what Gesture our Saviour us'd at the Institution of the Sacrament For the Scripture do's not inform us what it was and the Jews us'd variety of Gestures at the Passover and therefore since our Lord's Example cannot certainly be known in this Matter our Church cannot be charg'd with deviation from it 2. Those who Kneel at the Sacrament in compliance with the Orders of the Church do manifestly follow the Example of Christ For our Saviour comply'd with that Passover-gesture which the Jews then us'd tho' it was not the same that was us'd at the Institution in Egypt and his compliance may teach us not to be scrupulous about Gestures but to conform to the innocent and prevailing customs of the Church wheresoever we live And if Christians did walk according to this rule they wou'd greatly promote the peace and welfare of the Church of Christ and in so doing procure quiet and peace to themselves with unspeakable comfort and satisfaction But supposing our Lord did sit as the Dissenters will have it yet his bare example do's not oblige all Christians to a like practice 1. Because naked examples without some rule or note added to them to signify that 't is God's Will to have them constantly follow'd have not the force of Laws perpetually obliging the Conscience And therefore in this case because no such note is to be found we are not tied in Conscience to a strict imitation of Christ's Example Thus the Example of our Saviour do's not oblige us to defer our Baptism till the Age of 30 years or not to receive the Sacrament till a little before death and I pray what reason is there to follow his Example in sitting at the Sacrament any more than in those particulars 2. We are bound to imitate Christ in those things only which he has commanded but where there is no command there is no necessity Indeed we must follow Christ and his Apostles but in what Why in acting according to the Gospel-rule An example may help to interpret a Law but of it self it is no Law Against a rule no example is a competent warrant and if the example be according to the rule 't is not the Example but the Rule that is the Measure of our actions 3. The bare Example of Christ is no warrant for us to go by because he was an Extaordinary Person and did many things which we cannot and many which we must not do He Fasted 40 Daies and 40 Nights wrought Miracles c. which we are not to pretend to They say indeed We are bound to imitate Christ and the commendable Example of his Apostles in all things wherein it is not evident they had special Reasons moving them thereunto which do not concern us But I wou'd willingly be inform'd how we shall be ever able to know when they acted upon special Reasons and what they were that we may know our Duty if a bare Example without any Rule obliges us And if we guide our selves by Scripture or Reason in this matter then they are the measures of the Example Besides if we are not to imitate them in such things as they were mov'd to do upon special Reasons which did not concern us then we are obliged to imitate their Examples in such things as they did upon general and common Reasons which concern us as well as them or we are not oblig'd at all by any Example and if so then those Reasons are to be our Rule to which we are to reduce their Examples Unless we find some general or common Reason we have no Warrant according to their own Principle to follow their Examples and when such Reasons do appear then it 's not the Example alone that obliges us but Reason that approves the Example
in these by the help of our Sermons the fault must be either in the Matter of the Sermon or in the manner of it And as for the former of these I can scarce think that any Dissenter will except against our Sermons upon that account they being taken out of the Scriptures which were never better open'd and apply'd than in our Sermons I am sure all heavenly truths are faithfully declar'd in them Matters of Controversy are rarely handled in our Pulpits for the drift of our Preachers is to make the People good They resolve Cases of Conscience and press the motives to believe and the arguments to convince Men of their duty They condemn all Vices recommend all Vertues and apply the Promises and Threatnings of the Gospel And if Men cannot profit where such things are constantly well managed I am sure the fault do's not lie in the Matter of the Sermons but somewhere else If some say that the Matter is good but the manner is such that they cannot reap the like benefit by them as by the Non-Conformists Preaching I answer that the fault must then lie either in the Composition or the Delivery First as to the Composition I am confident that never did Men more endeavour after clear method and plain Language than our Preachers now do If it be objected that they do not keep the old method of Doctrine Reason and Vse I answer that they alwaies chuse it when it is natural but the ancient Doctors never observ'd any constant Rule and yet the People profited much more than they do now Secondly as to the Delivery if it be objected that our Preachers are not vehement enough I answer that they are when the Matter requires it but vehemence loses it's effect if it be spent upon all things alike Vehemence do's not consist in the strength of voice nor yet in that heat of temper which makes some Men speak earnestly when they are not so deeply affected as some of cooler tempers are Sedate Men may instruct and move by the help of serious consideration and those affections that are rais'd without it are little worth But neither all your Men nor all ours have the same voice or the same temper and therefore this can be no more hindrance to Edification among us than among you If reading of Sermons be objected I answer that some of our Preachers use no notes in the Pulpit others read but little and if a Man will but turn his head another way and not look upon the Preacher a Sermon that is read altogether will sound as well as if it were pronounced without book If reading make a thing unprofitable the Bible when 't is read must be unprofitable and it must be got without book to make it Edifying Besides some famous Preachers of your own read every word and therefore you may profit by ours as well as by them But I fear that when Men complain they cannot profit by our Sermons they mean nothing but that our Preachers do not move their affections as the Non-Conformists do To this I cou'd say much but it will be sufficient to mention only three things 1. Your Men and ours have several Talents some for informing the judgment others for moving the affections and others for both All your Men do not move you alike and yet you make such account of all that you think it a very disorderly thing for People to run from their own to another Minister tho' of the same way merely to have the affections more mov'd Because 2. It is far from profiting by Sermons to be tickl'd for a while and never to grow the better for them 3. The chief thing is this that affections rais'd merely by the earnestness of the Preacher are nothing comparable to those which we raise by consideration and reflection upon what we have heard And these affections our Sermons will certainly raise if you will take a little pains with your selves and lay them close to your Consciences Now since our Sermons cannot be blam'd I pray consider where the fault must lie if you cannot profit by them I beseech you in the fear of God by whose Word we must one day be all judg'd to consider impartially and ask your Consciences such Questions as these 1. Had you not some prejudice against the Minister you came to hear either for his Conformity or his strictness in it and the like If you had such prejudices bar the heart so strongly against the most excellent instructions that a Man will not profit by them 2. Did you not come to Church but once or twice and then conclude too hastily that there was no good to be gotten there and were you not willing to have this excuse for absenting your self wholly from it Had you attended much perhaps you had never left it Try again for some time and when you are acquainted with your Minister's method and stile and way of reasoning his Sermons may be clear easy and awakening to you The Scriptures themselves are obscure to the best of us till we are acquainted with them and if they had been treated as our Sermons are I mean rejected because they are not presently understood they had been thrown away long since as unprofitable 3. Did you not leave the Church because when you came the Minister happen'd to Treat of a Subject cross to your opinion Hasty persons fling away from those that contradict them but had you had patience you might have been profited and convinced by such Discourses 4. Was not the Minister when you chanc'd to go to Church treating of some distastful Subject which you love not to hear of Was it not Schism or Disobedience to Governours It is certain there are such sins which are very dangerous and he ought to Treat of them some time or other and if he Preach of Vnity and Obedience may not you profit by it I doubt you have heard some of your own Ministers speak harder words of Conformity and Conformists than you wou'd have had them and you fancy you can profit even by those Sermons why then shou'd you leave our Ministers because they press some duties more strictly than you like Do not many of your own way complain of their unprofitableness under your own Ministers which arises perhaps from a natural dulness and will not prejudice passion and disaffection to the way of worship or to any Christian Doctrine hinder profiting much more than natural indisposition So that if you complain of deadness and unprofitableness under our Ministry it is no more than many do under your own You shou'd not rashly conclude our Ministry to be Unedifying but rather suspect your selves to be guilty Those also who fancy that tho' they can profit something by our Ministry yet they can profit more by others ought to consider the same things and ask their own consciences the same questions Do's not this conceit arise from the foremention'd causes Are you not more earnestly press'd in our
this is not the least that God's public Worship is perform'd among us with so little Reverence and Devotion as it is But I will transcribe no more only I shall earnestly desire two things First that you wou'd consider seriously how you wou'd have lik'd what I have transcrib'd from Mr. Hildersham if one of our Men had Preach'd it especially if he added that for the Reverence of God's public Worship care shou'd be taken that the place where the Congregation Assembleth may be decent and comely and that 't is a foul sin and contempt of God's house to be careless about the Neatness of it If you wou'd have thought it unprofitable then consider why such things as please out of one Man's mouth shou'd displease out of another's Is it not manifest that partiality makes you not profit by our Sermons Or if you cou'd not like such Discourses either from Non-Conformists or our Ministers then are you not mistaken about profiting by Sermons when you think those discourses unprofitable which sober Men of all sides have thought necessary For Mr. Hildersham saies Prophaness and Atheism hath made us too void of all care in beautifying the house of God Secondly If you think such a Sermon profitable consider whether you have learnt so much out of Scripture as to study and observe those Rules Do you for instance pay Reverence to God's house and come at the beginning of Service and stand up and kneel with the Congregation c If you do not then the fault is not in our Sermons that you do not profit for you do not profit by the Scriptures themselves which plainly teach these things To conclude if we have all things necessary to the building us up in our most Holy Faith in the Communion of the Church it will be but a poor excuse for our Dividing from it that we hoped to be better Edify'd when we had no encouragement at all to hope it as long as we continu'd in the state of Separation upon this Pretence For it is the Blessing of God alone and not any Man's Skill in dispensing them that can make the word and ordinances any way beneficial to us With the help of his grace those means of Instruction which we undervalue most may be profitable to our Salvation Without it our Ears may be tickled and our Fancies pleasantly entertain'd for the time but we cannot be truly Edify'd by the most fluent and popular Tongue or the most melting and pathetical Expressions in the World CHAP. XI The pretence of it's being against one's Conscience to join with the Church of England Answer'd HAving Answer'd the most considerable Objections against our Communion I am now to deal with such Persons as separate from us tho' they have nothing to object against us such as pretend that they are not satisfy'd in our way that 't is against their Conscience to join with us or that they doubt of the lawfulness of our Communion or at least they scruple it But I shall shew that these excuses are utterly insignificant and that they cannot escape the wrath of God who commit a sin and think to cover it by pretending Conscience for it But before I enter upon these Matters I shall lay down the Principles I mean to proceed upon by treating distinctly on these Five Heads 1. Of the Nature of Conscience 2. Of the Rule of Conscience 3. Of the Power of Human Laws to oblige the Conscience And particularly 4. In the instances of Church-Communion 5. Of the Authority of Conscience or how far a Man is obliged to be guided by it in his actions I. Then to find out the Nature of Conscience let us consider what every Man doth really mean by that word when he has occasion to use it Now as to this I observe First that a Man never speaks of his Conscience but with respect to his own actions We do not for instance make it a point of Conscience whether a thing be true or false or whether an accident be prosperous or unfortunate or whether another Man has done well or ill These things indeed may please or trouble us but our Conscience is affected only with that which is willingly done or left undone by us or which we may do or may forbear Secondly We never use the Word Conscience about our actions but only so far as those actions are to be directed by some Law or Rule with which if they agree they are good and if they disagree they are evil Thirdly Our actions as we concern our Conscience in them are either already done or not already done But whether they are done or not done whether past or future they are either commanded by God and so they are Duties or forbidden by God and so they are Sins or neither commanded nor forbidden and so they are indifferent actions Our actions I say do not touch our Conscience but as they fall under these considerations and in all these respects we mean the same thing by Conscience For First If the action be not already done we think it either commanded by God and say we are bound in Conscience or think it our duty to do it or forbidden by God and say it is against our Conscience or we think it a sin to do it or else we think it is indifferent and say we may do it with a safe Conscience that is we believe the action may be done without transgressing any Law of God This is undeniably every Man's meaning when he talks of Conscience as to actions that are not yet done Secondly If we speak of our actions that are done and past saying my Conscience bears me witness or I am satisfy'd or troubled in Conscience for doing what I have done we mean nothing more than this that reflecting upon our own actions we find that we have either done as we are convinc'd we ought to do and this is a satisfaction to us or not done as we ought to do and the remembrance of this troubles us But in all these Cases we mean the same thing by Conscience to wit our Judgment and Persuasion concerning what we ought to do or ought not to do Only in the first sort Conscience is consider'd as the guide of actions to be done and in the second sort as the witness of those that are already done but in both sorts Conscience is the same thing to wit the Judgment of a Man's mind concerning the Morality of his Actions This is the true Notion of Conscience in general but if we put Epithets to it and talk of a good or evil Conscience a tender Conscience or the like then it includes more than I am now concern'd to give an account of II. I proceed to the Rule of Conscience It appears by what I have said that Conscience must alwaies have a Rule to follow For since Conscience is a Man's judgment about actions as good or bad or indifferent it is certain a Man must have some measure by applying
which he may judge of what sort the action is This Measure is the Rule of Conscience and Conscience is no farther safe than as it follows that Rule Now this Measure or Rule of Conscience can be nothing else but the Law of God because nothing can be a Duty or Sin but what is commanded or forbidden by God's Law and that thing only is indifferent which his Law neither commands nor forbids Now by the Law of God which is the Rule of Conscience I mean God's Will for the Goverment of Men's actions whether declar'd by Nature or Revelation By the Law of Nature I mean those Principles of Good and Evil just and unjust which God has written in our minds and which every Man is naturally convinced of Some things are eternally Good as to Worship God c. and we know them to be our Duty others are eternally Evil and we know them to be Sins by the light of Reason and the Apostle saies the Gentiles had this Law written in their hearts But Christians have the Law of Revelation too contain'd in the Scriptures by which God do's not make void the Law of Nature but declare it's Precepts more certainly and accurately with greater strength and greater rewards and punishments than before By this also he has perfected the Law of Nature and obliged us to higher instances of Vertue and added some positive Laws as for instance to believe in Christ to pray to God in Christ's Name to be Baptiz'd and partake of the Lord's Supper Thus then the Natural and Reveal'd Law of God is the great Rule of Conscience Only we must remember that by the Law of Nature is to be understood not only the chief and general heads of it but also the necessary deductions from these heads and by the Reveal'd Law is to be understood not only express Commands and Prohibitions but also the necessary consequences of those commands and prohibitions So that whatever is by direct inference or parity of reason commanded or forbidden is a Duty or a Sin tho' it be not commanded or forbidden in the Letter of the Law And if it be neither commanded nor forbidden by the Letter of the Law nor yet by inference or parity of reason the thing is indifferent and we may do it or let it alone with a safe Conscience III. In the third place I must consider the power of Human Laws to oblige the Conscience for in a secondary sence they are a part of the Rule of Conscience by vertue of and in subordination to the Laws of God This I shall explain in four propositions First It is most certain that God's Law Commands us to obey the Laws of Men. For all Society is founded in this Principal Law of Nature that we must obey our Governours in all honest and just things Otherwise no State City or Family can subsist happily And 't is most evident that God Commands us in Scripture to Obey them that have the Rule over us and to be Subject not only for Wrath but also for Conscience sake So that a Man is bound in duty to obey Human Laws and consequently they are a part of the Rule of Conscience Secondly Human Laws do not bind the Conscience by any Vertue in themselves but merely by Vertue of God's Law who has commanded us both by Nature and Scripture to obey our Superiours Conscience is our judgment of our actions according to God's Law and has no Superiour but God alone but yet we are bound in Conscience to obey Men because therein we obey God Thirdly Human Laws do no farther bind the Conscience than as they are agreeable to the Laws of God so that when Men command any thing sinful we must not obey For God has not given any Man power to alter his Laws or impose any thing inconsistent with them Fourthly Tho' Human Laws generally speaking bind the Conscience yet I do not say that every Human Law tho' consistent with God's Law do's at all times and in all cases oblige every Man's Conscience to active obedience to it so as that he sins against God if he transgress it For then who could be innocent But First where the Public or some private Person shall suffer damage or inconvenience by our not observing the Law or Secondly where the Manner of our not obeying it argues contempt of Authority or sets an ill example there the transgression of a Human Law is sinful and not in other cases So that there are many cases in which a Man may transgress a purely Human Law and yet not be a sinner before God provided I say there be no contempt of Authority or ill example in it for either of these makes it a sin For this I insist upon that God's Law and the public good require that Authority be held sacred and therefore when Governours insist upon a thing tho' it be trifling or inconvenient yet we must not even seem to contest the matter with them provided it be not sinful For to affront their Authority or to encourage others by our example to do it is a greater evil to the public than our obedience to an inconvenient Law can easily be IV. I shall now consider the power of Human Laws to oblige the Conscience in the instance of Church-Communion And here I affirm That every Man is bound in Conscience to join with the Church establish'd by Law in the place where he lives so long as that Church is a true sound part of the Catholic Church and nothing sinful is requir'd as a condition of Communion with it For I have already shewn that Men are bound to obey Human Laws that are not contrary to the Laws of God and therefore they must obey in Church-Matters unless it can be shew'd that God has forbidden Men to make Laws about Religion which can never be done But farther I earnestly desire it may be well consider'd by Dissenters that we are all really bound by the Laws of Jesus Christ and the Nature of his Religion to preserve as much as in us lies the Unity of the Church which consists not only in professing the same faith but joining together in the same worship And therefore whoever breaks this Unity doth really transgress the Laws of Jesus Christ and is guilty of Schism which is so much caution'd against and so highly condemn'd in Scripture Those therefore who think they are no more bound to come to Church than to obey any common Act of Parliament are greatly mistaken because they break not only the Law of Man but the Law of God For tho' all the circumstances of Worship are Human Institutions yet the Public Worship it self under Public Lawful Governours is of Divine appointment and no Man can renounce it without sinning against Christ as well as Human Laws A Divine Law cloath'd with circumstances of Man's appointment creates another kind of obligation than a Law that commands a thing perfectly indifferent In the former case we must obey because 't is
God's own Law in the other we only obey Man because God has obliged us in general to obey our Superiours God commands every Subject to pay tribute to whom tribute is due but Human Authority determines out of what goods and in what proportion he must pay Now because Human Authority interposes if a Man can by fraud detain the King 's right do's he incur no other guilt than breaking an Act of Parliament and being liable to penalties if he be detected Yes certainly for Tribute being injoin'd by God's Law the Man is unjust and breaks God's Law and his willingness to suffer the penalties do's not lessen his guilt The Case is the same as to Church-Vnity for tho' Human Laws prescribe particular circumstances and Forms of Worship yet God's Laws oblige us to keep the Unity of the Church as much as to pay the King his due And that Man that paies his just debts by such a method as the Law of the Land declares to be unjust may as well acquit himself from knavery before God as that Man that chuses a way of public worship in opposition to the Church-Laws can acquit himself of Schism before God Nay separation from the Church is so much against the Law of God that shou'd Human Laws grant a Toleration and call no Man to an account for separation from the establish'd Church yet such a separation wou'd still be a Schism and a Sin against God For no Human Law can make that Lawful which God's Law has forbidden V. It remains that I speak of the Authority of Conscience or how far a Man is obliged to be guided by his Conscience in his actions that is how far we are obliged to act or not act when we are convinc'd in our judgment that the action is commanded or forbidden by God Now our judgment concerning what God has commanded or forbidden or left indifferent is either right or wrong If right we are said to have a right Conscience if wrong we have an erroneous Conscience There is also a doubting Conscience when we know not well how to make any judgment at all but of this I shall Treat in another place Now if our Conscience or judgment be right that is according to God's Law without doubt we are forever bound to act according to it nor can we sin in doing so whatever the consequence be But the great question is what we must do when our Conscience is erroneous and mistaken and to answer this I lay down three Rules which I think may give any Man satisfaction First Where a Man is mistaken in his judgment even in that case it is alwaies a sin to act against it Tho' we take a sin for a duty or a duty for a sin yet so long as we are thus persuaded it will be a great crime to act against this persuasion Because by so doing we act against the best light we have at present and therefore our will is as wicked as if it acted against a true light Nothing but Conscience can guide our actions and tho' an eroneous Conscience is a very bad and unsafe guide yet still 't is the only guide we have and if we may lawfully refuse to be guided by it in one instance we may with as much reason reject it's guidance in all What is a wilful sin or a sin against knowledge but acting otherwise than we were convinc'd to be our duty Is not that Man thought sincere that acts as he believes and that Man an hypocrite that acts otherwise whether his judgment be true or false He who being under a mistake acts contrary to his judgment wou'd certainly upon the same temptation act contrary to it were his judgment never so well inform'd And therefore his Will being as bad in the one case as in the other he is equally a sinner as to the Wilfulness of the Crime tho' indeed in other respects there will be a great difference in the cases Shou'd a Jew turn Christian or a Papist turn Protestant while yet they believe their former Religions to be true we shou'd all believe them to be great Villains and Hypocrites because they did it upon base principles and in contradiction to their judgments Nay we shou'd all think more favourably of a Protestant that being seduced by a cunning Papist did really out of Conscience go over to the Romanists than of such Persons All this put together shews that no Man can in any case act against his judgment but he is guilty of sin in so doing Secondly The mistake of a Man's judgment may be of such a nature that as it will be a sin to act against his judgment so it will likewise be a sin to act according to it For that action is good and a duty which God has commanded and that is a sin which he has forbidden 'T is not our Opinion but his Law that makes things good or evil And therefore we shall be forever obliged to do some actions and forbear others whatever our judgment be because we cannot alter the Nature of things For if the Moral goodness or badness of actions were to be measur'd by Mens opinions then duty and sin wou'd be the most uncertain things in the world and what is good or evil to day wou'd be the contrary to morrow as any Man's opinion alters But such consequences are intolerable and therefore tho' a Man do's follow his judgment yet he may be guilty of sin and be damn'd for it too if his judgment lead him to act against the Law of God But it must be observ'd that I do not say that every action according to a mistaken judgment is sinful but that a Man's mistake may be such that it will be a sin to act either against it or according to it For a Man may often mistake and yet not sin provided his mistakes do not lead him to a breach of God's Law For First if a Man believe a thing to be commanded by God which is neither commanded nor forbidden as if he think himself obliged to Pray seven or three times a day he is certainly mistaken because God has bound him up to neither And therefore since God has not commanded the contrary he may safely act according to his mistake nay so long as his mistake continues he is bound to do so Secondly If a Man believe a thing to be forbidden by God which is neither commanded nor forbidden as if he think that God has forbidden him to play at Cards in this case he may follow his false opinion without sin nay he is bound to follow it Because since God has not forbidden it 't is no sin to follow his mistaken Conscience but it is a sin to act against it But then in other cases when a Man thinks that to be sinful or indifferent which God commands or that to be Lawful or a Duty which God forbids here the mistake is dangerous and it is a sin to act against his judgment or
are horribly and inexcusably guilty of Schism and those that separate thro' such mistakes as they might have avoided if they had been careful are very blameable and are bound as they love their souls to take more care of informing their Consciences that so they may leave their sin but when God who searches the hearts knows that a Man did his best and had not means or opportunities of understanding better then tho' the Man commit Schism yet he is innocent of it And God who judgeth of Men by their inward sincerity will impute it to his ignorance and forgive it at the last day especially if this innocently mistaken Man be careful in the following points First that he be not obstinate but ready to receive Conviction Secondly That he separate no more than he needs must but comply in all those instances where he is satisfy'd he may do it with a safe Conscience Thirdly That where he cannot comply he patiently submit to the penalty of the Law neither exclaiming at his Governours or the Magistrates nor using illegal means to get more liberty but living as a quiet and peaceable Subject Fourthly That he do not censure those of another persuasion but shew himself a good Neighbour and friendly to them Whoe're observes these things tho' he dissent from us I shall be loth to censure him as an ill Man ill Subject or ill Christian But then all that I have said do's no more justify or lessen the sin of Schism than the sin of Idolatry for the case is the same in both whether the Man be a deluded Dissenter or a deluded Papist And therefore notwithstanding all that may be said concerning the innocence or excusableness of some Mens mistakes about these matters yet nevertheless it infinitely concerns every Person to have a care how he be engaged either in the one or the other To conclude I have shewn how absolutely necessary 'tis that every Man shou'd endeavour to inform himself aright before he disobey his Governours or separate from the Church and that tho' something in our worship be really against his Conscience yet separation may be a great sin if a Man shou'd prove to be mistaken in his Notions And therefore every Dissenter ought presently to set about the true informing of his judgment for fear he live in a grievous sin Let him not satisfy himself with frivolous pretences For tho' we agree in the rule of faith and manners yet Schism is a dreadful sin and a Man may be damn'd for that as certainly as for heresy or drunkenness Sure I am the ancient Fathers thought so What if the points of Conformity be matters of dispute Who made them so The Church of England wou'd have been well pleas'd if these Controversies had never been We think a Man may be a very good Christian and go to heaven that is not able to defend our Ceremonies c. but he that separates upon the account of them is bound at the peril of his own Salvation to use the best means he can to be satisfy'd about them To those that pretend that these are subtil points above their capacity I answer that since they have understanding enough to find fault and separate they ought to have honesty enough to seek satisfaction which is all that we desire of them otherwise they will never be able to answer to God or Man for the Mischiefs of Separation We are bound especially in this case to prove all things and hold fast that which is good For no Man can disobey his Superiours without sin unless after he has us'd his best endeavours he finds their commands inconsistent with his duty to God For a Man to disobey till he has done this is an unwarrantable thing and in the Case I now speak of it is no less than the sin of Formal Criminal Schism CHAP. XII The pretence of a Doubting Conscience Answer'd I Come now to the Case of those who separate because they doubt whether they may lawfully Communicate with us or no and who fear they shou'd sin in doing any thing with a doubting Conscience To this I might answer from the former Chapter that if Communion with our Church be a Duty no Man's doubts concerning the lawfulness of it will justify his separation from it For if a Man's setled Persuasion that an action is unlawful will not justify his omission of it supposing that God commands it much less will his bare doubt excuse him But because this answer seems rather to cut the knot than to unty it I shall particularly examine this Plea of a doubting Conscience by giving an account First Of the nature of a doubting Conscience Secondly Of the Rule of it Thirdly Of the Power that Human Laws have over it Fourthly Of its Authority i. e. whether at all or how far a Man is obliged by it I. In speaking of the Nature of a doubting Conscience I shall Treat 1. Of doubting in General 2. Of such doubts as affect the Conscience 3. Of the difference between the doubting and the scrupulous Conscience First Then A Man is said to doubt when he cannot determin whether the thing he is considering be so or be not so he thinks the question probable on both sides but cannot fix upon either So that his mind is like a ballance when by reason of equal weight in both Scales neither Scale comes to the bottom 'T is true a Man may lean more to one side of the question than the other and yet be doubtful still just as one Scale may have more Weight than the other while yet that Weight is not able to carry it perfectly down but when there is so much more evidence on one side that the mind can determin it self then the Man doubts no longer but is said to be Persuaded as the Ballance is said to be fixt when there is Weight enough to carry it down on either side 'T is true a Man has not alwaies the same degree of Persuasion Sometimes the evidence is so strong that he intirely assents without the least doubtfulness This is Assurance or full Persuasion At other times the evidence may gain an Assent but not such as excludes all doubts of the contrary This kind of Assent is call'd Opinion or probable Persuasion So a greater or less Weight carries down the Scale with greater or less force and briskness But still in both these Cases the Mind is determin'd the Ballance is turn'd and the doubt is ended tho' perhaps the Man is not perfectly free from all scruple about that thing Secondly then I shall Treat of such doubts as affect the Conscience A Man may doubt of any thing which he has to consider but every doubt do's not affect the Conscience As a Man's Conscience is affected with nothing but his own actions so his doubts do not affect his Conscience any farther than they concern his own actions And as his Conscience is not affected with his own actions any otherwise than as
cases wave the safer for the more Prudent side and consequently it is not alwaies a Rule to a doubting Conscience to chuse the safer side or the side which is more free from danger of sinning But Secondly if by safer side we mean that which is freest from all dangers and inconveniences of all kinds whatsoever and do's best serve all the Spiritual and Temporal interests that a wise and good Man can propose I freely grant that it is the only Rule to a doubting Conscience to follow the safer side For then the safer side is the more reasonable side which as I said before is in all doubtful cases to be chosen 2. Having given an account of the general Rule of a doubting Conscience I come now in the Second place to make application of it to the several Heads of doubtful cases Now all doubts of Conscience are either single or double It is a single doubt when a Man doubts on one side but is satisfy'd on the other For instance he doubts whether it be Lawful to do the action but is satisfy'd he may Lawfully omit it or he doubts whether he may Lawfully omit it but is satisfy'd he may Lawfully do it It is a double doubt when a Man doubts on both sides when he is at a loss what to do because he fears he may sin whether he do's the action or do's it not First as to the case of a single doubt we may thus apply the General Rule When a Man doubts only on one side it is more reasonable if all other Considerations be equal to chuse that side which he hath no doubt of In such a case we must not do what we doubt of for it is unreasonable to run the risque of sinning when a Man can without any inconveniency avoid it If a Man doubt whether it be Lawful for a Christian to go to Law and cannot positively determine with himself whether it be Lawful or Vnlawful so to do in this and all other such-like cases the Rule is plain that while he doubts it is more reasonable to forbear because he runs a hazard in venturing upon what he doubts of but he runs no hazard in forbearing But then if there be other Considerations to over-ballance this Consideration of uncertainty it will be more reasonable to chuse that side which I did before doubt of Nay it is our Duty so to do for if I doubt I do by doubting own that I cannot tell whether the action be Lawful or Vnlawful and surely then the weight of pressing Considerations ought to turn the Ballance otherwise I cannot answer to my self or the World for the consequences that may ensue Thus if I am Guardian to an Orphan whose Estate is so entangled that a Law-suit is necessary for the clearing it I am obliged notwithstanding my doubt to secure his Right by going to Law To conclude it is not only Lawful but Advisable to do that which we doubt of if a great good may be compass'd or a great evil may be avoided by the doing of it Secondly in the case of a double doubt when a Man fears he may sin whether he do the action or do's it not it is in vain to say he must get his doubt remov'd for perhaps that may be impossible thro' want of time or good Counsel He is therefore to follow the same Rule as in other doubtful Cases that is to say he is to act as reasonably as he can and if he do this I am sure he incurs no blame But because the application of this General Rule is various according to many circumstances that may happen therefore I shall comprise all the varieties in these Four following Propositions 1. If the sin we are afraid of appear equal on both sides we must do that which we doubt the least of that is we must do that which appears more probable to be free from the danger of sin 2. If we think there is equal danger on both sides we must do that which appears to be the less sin 3. If we think the one side more probable and the other less sinful we must act according to the degree of the probability or the sin If there be much more probability on the one side than on the other and but small difference between the sins then we must act that which is more probable But then if the consequences on one side if a Man shou'd happen to be mistaken be so terrible that they over-ballance all the probabilities on the other side a wise Man will act that which sets him free from these consequences Thus if a Man be try'd for his Life and the Evidence against him be not so full as to create a persuasion in the Jury that he is Guilty in this case they shou'd rather acquit him notwithstanding some probabilities of his Guilt than run the hazard of doing Murder by condemning the innocent 4. If a Man doubts equally on both sides and the sin appear equal on both sides then his own ease or advantage or reputation or any other prudential inducements must determine him to do the action he doubts about or to let it alone When all is said every Man in doubtful cases is left to his own discretion and if he acts according to the best Reason he has he is not culpable tho' he be mistaken in his measures But to render these Rules about a double doubt more intelligible and more useful I shall give the Reader an instance of a Case in which they are all apply'd The case is this Here is a Man that thinks it his Duty to receive the Sacrament constantly or at least frequently but on the other side tho' no grievous sin lies upon his Conscience unrepented of yet by reason of his mistakes about the Nature and Ends of the Lord's Supper and the dispositions that fit a Man for it he is under great fears of his being unqualify'd for it Now the question is what this Man who after all his endeavours cannot get over these difficulties ought to do For if he do not come to the Sacrament he doubts he sins on that account if he do come he doubts he approaches unworthily and so sins upon that account Shall he receive the Sacrament doubting as he do's or shall he forbear it doubting as he do's Now a Man cannot resolve this question but by applying the foregoing Rules after this manner First since the Man doubteth that he sins whether he come to the Sacrament or forbear it must be consider'd which side appears most likely to free him from sin Now I am confident he will think it more reasonable to come meanly prepar'd than customarily to abstain because he is much more certain that 't is his duty to frequent it than that he is unprepar'd for it Indeed were he a debauch'd person or had he been lately guilty of some notorious Sin and came to the Lord's Table with that sin unrepented of he had reason to dread unworthy
receiving as much as abstaining but since the case is quite otherwise since he is mistaken while he thinks himself unworthy certainly he runs a greater danger by absenting himself than by coming with his doubts about him Because his doubts of his unworthiness being only surmises cannot possibly be so well grounded as his doubts that he sins by habitually abstaining which is expresly forbidden by God's Law Secondly Tho' it can hardly be suppos'd in our case yet let us suppose that the Man has as much reason to believe that he is an unworthy receiver if he receive at all as he has to believe that it is a sin in him if he do not receive the question then is which is the least sin to receive unworthily out of a sence of duty or not to receive at all For the least sin is to be chosen when he cannot avoid both For my part I think that a Man who obeys one known Law of God for Conscience sake when he cannot do it without breaking another law in the manner of performance I say I think that that man tho' he is not innocent yet is far less guilty than he who omits a known duty and so breaks a known Law of God for Conscience sake Suppose two Men who know themselves to be unfit so much as to say their Prayers one of these Men doth upon this account forbear all Prayers the other dares not to forbear his usual offices tho' he believes he performs them sinfully Now I dare say that all Men will think him the better Man who says his Prayers tho' both of them be very faulty Because whatever a Man's indisposition be he is oblig'd to do his duty as well as he can and it is better to perform a duty after an ill manner than wholly to omit it Since therefore the greater sin is to be avoided when a Man is under a necessity of committing one it 's more reasonable that a Man shou'd come to the Sacrament doubting of his unworthiness than that he shou'd habitually abstain from it If it be said that he that eateth and drinketh unworthily eateth and drinketh damnation to himself 1 Cor. 11.29 and that there cannot be a greater sin than that which will actually damn a Man I answer that let the sin of receiving unworthily be as damnable as we can reasonably suppose it yet the sin of totally withdrawing from it is much greater and more damnable So that if he who partakes 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 And certainly did Men seriously consider what a sin it is to live without the Sacrament and what dreadful consequences they bring upon themselves hereby they wou'd not look upon it as so slight a matter to neglect it but what apprehensions soever they had of the sin and danger of receiving unworthily they wou'd think it more sinful and more dangerous not to receive at all Thirdly Suppose the Man takes all opportunities of receiving the Sacrament tho' perhaps he is not often very well satisfy'd about his preparation but since his last receiving he finds he has liv'd more loosly than he was wont or he has been very lately guilty of some grievous sin so that he thinks himself unfit to receive at his next usual time Upon this he is in a great perplexity for he thinks he has more reason to believe he sins if he receives in these circumstances than if he forbears because he is more certain that God forbids him to receive unworthily than he is certain that God commands him to receive upon every opportunity But then if he be really bound to receive upon every opportunity he is sensible in that case it is a greater sin to neglect this duty than to perform it unworthily so long still as he performs it out of Conscience On one side he runs a greater danger of sinning on the other if he be mistaken he sins in a greater degree What now is the Man to do in this case I answer First It is very reasonable that he shou'd forbear receiving once or twice for his exercise of repentance and better preparation against another opportunity Because since we have no reason to think that God has commanded us to receive so many times a year any more than that we shou'd pray so many times a day we are not oblig'd by an express Law to receive upon every opportunity but there is an express law against receiving unworthily and therefore there is greater danger in doing so So that the consideration of the certain danger ought to over ballance that of the greater sin and the Man ought rather to defer his receiving than to receive in his present circumstances But Secondly a Man must not habitually absent himself upon the the account of unworthiness For I have shewn that there is more danger of sinning by not receiving at all than by receiving unworthily and there is a much greater sin in wholly withdrawing than in coming with never so great fears of being unfit And therefore he must receive frequently tho' he be in danger of doing it unworthily rather than not receive at all Fourthly if the Person think that the danger of sinning and the sin it self are equal whether he receive or no then he is to consider the inducements of Prudence and Interest and they are to turn the ballance And it is plain that it is better to receive than to forbear upon those accounts For besides the temporal advantages of receiving he reaps this Spiritual profit by it viz. that he takes the best method of growing more worthy and curing his doubts whereas by absenting himself his doubts increase and he is in great danger of losing that sense of Religion which he now has Thus have I shewn how to apply all the Rules concerning a double doubt and if I have dwelt too long upon this subject I hope the frequency and importance of the case will excuse me III. Having setled the Notion and Rule of a Doubting Conscience I come now in the Third place to speak of the power of human Laws over a Doubting Conscience And my assertion is that wherever lawful Authority has commanded an action that command is generally speaking a sufficient warrant for a Man to do that action tho' he doubts whether in it self it be lawful or no. That I may speak clearly to this point I shall 1. premise some things 2. shew the grounds of my assertion 3. answer the Objections brought against it 1. I premise Five things First That no Authority upon earth can oblige Men to do what God forbids or to forbear what God commands Secondly If a Man thinks that thing which his Governours oblige him to is sinful tho' he be mistaken he cannot obey them without sinning But then if he be mistaken he also sins in disobeying if he be mistaken thro' his own fault Thirdly
If a Man doubt whether the action injoin'd by Authority be sinful or no yet if he think it unlawful to act against his private doubt he cannot do that action without sin But then if this Notion of his be false as I shall shew it is he sins also in disobeying if he be mistaken thro' his own fault Fourthly If a Man has been so extremely careless in learning his duty that he doubts of the plainest matter in such a case a Man is highly accountable for doing that which contradicts the Law of God tho' he did it purely in obedience to that Authority which God has set over him and purely in compliance with this true principle that in doubtful cases we must be guided by our Superiours For certainly if a sinful thing be commanded not only he that commands but he that obeys also must answer for it whether he do it doubtingly or with a persuasion of it's lawfulness Only we must remember First that this is true only in such cases where the Man might have known his duty had he not been careless for if a Man be ignorant or doubtful because he wanted means or opportunities of informing himself he is not guilty of sin before God tho' he break God's Law Secondly that when this case happens the sin doth not lie in obeying his Superiours with a doubting conscience but in his doing that which he wou'd have known to be sinful if he had been so careful as he shou'd have been For obeying his Superiours whether with a doubt or without one is no part of the sin Fifthly I premise that whatever the power of Superiours be for the over-ruling a private doubt it must not destroy the truth or take away the use of the foregoing Rules in the Case of a double Doubt Because the case of obeying Superiours when we doubt of the Lawfulness of their commands is a double Doubt as properly as any other and therefore if it be two to one more probable that the command is unlawful than that it is lawful we must not obey it by the first Rule But then tho' the Authority of Superiours alone will not turn the Ballance yet there are usually such considerations of the greater sin and more dreadful consequences of disobeying as will outweigh all the probabilities on the other side and make it more reasonable to obey However if the command be lawful a man's false opinion that it is sinfiul will not excuse him unless his mistake be such as he cou'd not rectify These things being premis'd the plain question is this whether in the case of a pure doubt about the lawfulness or unlawfulness of an action where the probabilities are on both sides pretty equal and where likewise the Man concern'd has done all that he was obliged to do for the satisfying himself whether I say in this case the command of a lawful superiour do's not oblige the Man to do that of which he doubteth I affirm it do's oblige him so to do and therefore 2. I shall shew the grounds of my assertion And First Modesty obliges us to pay as much deference to the judgment of our Superiours as this comes to If a doubt shou'd arise about the lawfulness of any civil practice we shou'd without any great difficulty be determin'd by the judgment of a few Learned Prudent and honest Persons whom we think better able to judge of the case than our selves and do's it not argue much self-conceit and great contempt of our Superiours to refuse the same respect to their judgment whose business it is to consult and command for the best Secondly Bishop Sanderson and other Casuists agree that in all disputed cases he that is in possession of the thing contended for has the advantage of the other that contends with him supposing all other things be equal Thus if I am in possession of an Estate which another Claims I cannot justly be dispossessed till the other Man's Title appears to be better than mine Now in our Case the Superiour asserteth his right and commandeth the Subject questioneth his right because he doubts whether the command be not sinful but since the superiour is in possession of the Authority to command the Subject must by no means by his disobedience dispossess him of that Authority till he is convinced that he has greater reason to disobey than to obey But this is impossible because the reasons are suppos'd equal on both sides Thirdly Since in all doubtful Cases it is a common rule that the safer side is to be chosen 't is certain that 't is safer to obey than to disobey in a doubtful case For there is a plain Law of God that commands us to obey Superiours in all lawful things and if the command be unlawful the only hazard we run is of transgressing some Law of God which we did not know and which perhaps we were not bound or had not means to know but in a doubtful case it is very uncertain whether the Law of God forbid the thing or no and if the command be lawful then we run the hazard of transgressing a plain Law which we cannot but know and which is of the greatest importance to Mankind Fourthly Since in all cases we must do as we would have others do to us let us consider whether we should not think it unreasonable for our own inferiours to contradict our Rules upon pretence of doubting about their being lawful If a Parent should command his Son to sit uncover'd before him or a Master command his Servant to dress a Dinner on the Lord's-Day and either of them should refuse to do so because he is not satisfy'd that the thing is lawful would not a Parent or a Master say I am to judge what is fit for you to do and you must not think by your foolish doubts and scruples to controul my commands I dare say most Men will think this a very just reply And if so then our Superiour also is to be obey'd in purely doubtful cases notwithstanding our doubt And if we think otherwise it is because our own Liberty and Interest are concern'd and we are prejudiced in favour of our selves Fifthly If Superiours may not determine in merely doubtful cases their authority signifies nothing nor can it secure the public happiness For there is no indifferent thing but some Person or other will doubt whether it be lawful and if such a doubt be a just reason to deny obedience what will be the consequence of such a principle but perpetual confusions For instance if a Prince make War and every ignorant and unexperienced Subject may lawfully withdraw his assistance in case he doubts whether that War be lawful or no what a sad case wou'd that Kingdom be in But these consequences are intolerable and therefore the principle from whence they flow must needs be thought intolerable also 3. Having thus prov'd my assertion I come now to answer the arguments that are brought on the other side
rather it was a persuasion with some mixture of doubtfulness If the Man was not fully persuaded that it was a sin to eat yet he thought it much more probable that it was a sin than that it was not For he cou'd not be condemn'd of his own Conscience for eating if he did not think his eating to be unlawful and were not in some degree persuaded of it Well but the Apostle says v. 5. One man esteemeth one day above another another man esteemeth every day alike let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind From whence 't is plain that a Man must be persuaded that the action is lawful else he doth not act with a safe Conscience And is not that the very same thing that is here said He that doubteth is condemn'd if he eat because he eateth not of faith or with a full persuasion The Apostle therefore by the former Text directs us to interpret this latter in the proper sence of doubting But I answer that St. Paul did not oblige them to get full persuasions in their several waies for there was too much of that already amongst them and 't was nothing to his purpose to tell them that if they acted without a full persuasion of the lawfulness of the action they sinn'd against Conscience but his design was to persuade them quietly to permit each other to enjoy their several persuasions in those little matters without censuring one another So that the words must be rendred Let every one be fill'd with his own mind or satisfy'd with his own persuasion This indeed differs from our English Translation but Grotius and the Vulgar Latin as well as St. Chrysostom and Theodoret do thus interpret it and moreover the matter requires it For otherwise the precept is neither reasonable nor possible since if there appears reason of doubting it is in vain to command a man not to doubt Nay it is then as much his duty to doubt as in other cases to believe Thus then it appears that these words he that doubteth is damn'd if he eat do not overthrow my assertion But tho' this is a true and substantial answer to the argument yet I shall give another which unties the difficulty upon the Dissenters own Principles Supposing therefore what is utterly false that St. Paul speaks of a really doubting Person and not of one that is persuaded and that the Man did sin in eating those meats of the lawfulness of which he doubted yet it do's not follow that a Man sins in obeying Authority where he doubts of the lawfulness of the command For there is a vast disparity in the Cases since the Man St. Paul speaks of was at Liberty to forbear eating and sinn'd in chusing to run a needless hazard of transgressing God's Law but when the Superiour commands a Man is not at Liberty In the former case the Man might forbear without any danger but in the latter case there is greater danger in forbearing than in acting and therefore he is Bound to act in the latter case tho' it might be sin to act in the former But further the reason why he that eateth doubtingly sins in so doing is this because he eateth not of faith and therefore St. Paul do's not say it is alwaies sinful to act in a doubtful case because there are some doubtful cases wherein a Man may act with faith notwithstanding his doubt For he that is satisfy'd that he acts according to his duty in the present circumstances do's act with faith and therefore when a Man is satisfy'd that it is more reasonable all things consider'd to do an action than to forbear it and that it wou'd be sinful in his circumstances to act otherwise that Man do's not sin in acting tho' he act with some kind of doubt because he acts in faith being satisfy'd that he acts according to his duty in his present circumstances Thus then 't is plain that to obey authority in a purely doubtful case is not sinful because a Man may soon be satisfy'd that it is not only more reasonable but his duty so to do If it be said that a Man cannot have faith that is be satisfy'd about an action and yet doubt of it at the same time I answer that the case often happens A Man has often very great doubts about the lawfulness of an action in general and yet may be satisfy'd that considering the circumstances he is in it may be lawfully done All doubting is not contrary to faith It is sufficient if the doubts be over-ballanc'd Tho' a Man's doubts be hard and troublesome yet if he is persuaded that all things consider'd it is more advisable to do the action than to forbear it he has faith enough to act with a safe Conscience Because he acts according to his best judgment and more than this a Man cannot do IV. I am now to speak in the Fourth and last place of the authority of a doubting Conscience and to inquire whether at all or how far a Man is obliged by it I say therefore in general that a doubting Conscience do's not oblige at all For a doubting Conscience is the suspence of a Man's judgment about a particular action he doubts whether he be bound to do it or forbear it Now to suppose that a Man thinks himself bound in Conscience while he is disputing whether he is bound or no is to suppose a contradiction A Man cannot be bound in Conscience to do or forbear any action but as he thinks that God's Law has commanded or forbidden it and therefore he that is doubtful whether it be commanded or forbidden cannot be obliged in Conscience either way There is no particular Law of God which determines our actions one way or other in the case of a doubt and the general Laws whether natural or reveal'd can oblige us to no more than to endeavour to understand our duty as well as we can and when we are at a loss to act as reasonably as we can He that do's thus acts with a safe Conscience tho' he act doubtfully Having thus largely discuss'd the case of a doubting Conscience I think it will not be amiss to apply what has been said to the Case of our present Dissenters There are several Persons that are unsatisfy'd about the lawfulness of our Communion some upon the account of Ceremonies others of other things None of them can say that these things are unlawful for that is the case of a resolv'd Conscience with which we have nothing here to do but they are uncertain whether they be lawful or no and so long as they thus doubt they dare not join in our worship fearing they shou'd sin against God in so doing Of these Persons some have a single doubt that is they doubt whether they may lawfully join with us but they are satisfy'd they may lawfully separate from us others have a double doubt that is they doubt whether they may lawfully join with us and they doubt
whether they may lawfully separate from us As to the First of these sorts tho' in a single doubt it is more safe to chuse that side on which a Man has no doubt than that on which he doubts yet this Rule holds only in such cases where a Man may forbear the action without danger of sinning tho' he cannot do it without danger of sinning But in our case 't is evident that as there may be sinning in Conforming so there is certainly danger of sinning in not Conforming Nor is it more safe to separate in case of a single doubt than of a double one For the Man who is satisfy'd in his mind that he may lawfully cut himself off from the Communion of the Church and live in constant disobedience to his Superiours which things are directly contrary to God's Laws must needs be grosly and criminally ignorant of his duty and therefore his being satisfy'd about such sins will not excuse him because he was able and it was his duty to know better Nay further tho' God had left it indifferent whether we keep the Unity of the Church and obey our Superiours or no tho' the case were really that of a single doubt tho' there was no danger in forbearing these things but the only danger was in doing them yet I say it is more reasonable to Conform than to Separate notwithstanding For tho' in a single doubt a Man is to chuse that side on which he has no doubt rather than that on which he doubts yet this Rule as I said before do's not hold unless all other considerations be equal And therefore if a great good may be obtain'd or a great evil avoided by acting on the doubtful side that consideration ought to turn the Ballance and over-rule the doubt as I shew'd in the Case of going to Law And certainly if weighty considerations ought to over-ballance a single doubt in any case then the considerations of the Peace of the Kingdom the Security of Religion and those many Public and Private Mischiefs that attend Separation ought to prevail in this of ours and oblige Men to Conform And I wish this were well consider'd by our doubting Dissenters As to the Second sort who doubt both of the lawfulness of Conforming and also of the lawfulness of separating from us I say First if the probabilities appear pretty equal on both sides then it is their duty to obey Authority as I prov'd in the Third general Head of this Discourse Secondly if they think it more probable that they ought not to Conform than that they ought then tho' the Authority of Superiours alone have not weight enough to turn the Ballance yet the consideration of the great sin and the more dreadful consequences of separation are sufficient and ought to oblige them to Conform as appears from the Third prop. about a double doubt p. 256 257. Now let any indifferent Man judge between us and our Dissenters 'T is plain that the things they doubt of are not directly forbidden by God And if they are forbidden by consequences those consequences are so obscure that tho' such usages have ever been in the Christian Church yet they were never condemn'd as sinful till our daies And even now these consequences are not discover'd by our superiours no not by as great and good Divines of all persuasions as any in the World Nay the far greater number and those as Pious and Able as any do plainly own our injunctions to be innocent at least if not Apostolical So that if they are all mistaken it can at most be but a sin of ignorance in an ordinary person where so many of the best guides are mistaken if he shou'd transgress But now on the other hand if our Governours be in the right and our Communion lawful then how great a sin are they guilty of in breaking the Laws of Church-Vnity which are as plain as any in the Bible and that in such instances where the whole Catholic Church of Old and the greatest and best part of the present Church are of a different persuasion from them The consequences also of their separation are most dreadful for by it they deprive themselves of the ordinary means of Salvation and keep up those discords and animosities in the Church which have torn the bowels of it and caused Atheism and Prophaness to overspread it they affront their Governours give scandal to all peaceable persons and offer a very fair pretence to factious Men to practise against the best of Goverments So they take the Most effectual course to ruin the best Church in the World and with it the reform'd Religion in this Kingdom And now let any Man judge whether any doubt about the lawfulness of our Communion and all the probabilities of the doubt have weight enough to Ballance against such a sin and such consequences Certainly an unconcern'd Person will pronounce that in such a case a Man is bound to Conform rather than to Separate and that is all I contend for CHAP. XIII The pretence of a Scrupulous Conscience Answer'd I Proceed now to the pretence of a Scrupulous Conscience in Treating of which I shall 1. Shew what I mean by it 2. Observe some few things concerning it 3. Offer some plain Rules and Means by which we may best get rid of it First then Conscience is a Man's judgment concerning the Goodness or Evil or his Actions and a Scrupulous Conscience is a Scrupulous judgment concerning things in their own nature indifferent and consists either 1. in strictly tying up our selves to some things which God has no where commanded as the Pharisees made great Conscience of washing before meat c. and observ'd such usages as Religiously as the most indisputable commands of God or 2. in a conscientious abstaining from some things which are no waies unlawful doubting and fearing where no fear is thinking that God is as much offended by our eating some kind of Meats or wearing some Garments as by Adultery or Murder and being more precise about little matters than other Good Christians are or our selves ought to be Secondly Concerning this Scrupulous Conscience we may observe 1. that it is a sickly temper of Mind and a state of Infirmity arising from a Want of right understanding our Religion from Timerousness Melancholy and Prejudice Now this is no more a Vertue or commendable Quality in us than 't is to be sickly and often indispos'd A good Conscience is firm and steady well setled and resolv'd but such needless scruples are at the best a sign of an ungovern'd fancy and a weak judgment just as the Niceness and Squeamishness of a Man's stomach that distasts Wholsom Food is a symptom of an unsound and unhealthy Body 2. 'T is often a sign of Hypocrisy as 't was in the Scribes and Pharisees who strain'd at a Gnat and swallow'd a Camel and hoped to make amends for their gross Transgressions in other cases of far greater Weight and Moment
best Policy whether Civil or Ecclesiastical that can be establish'd will have some flaws and defects which must be born and tolerated Some Inconveniences will in process of time arise that never cou'd be foreseen or provided against and to make alteration upon every emergent difficulty may be often of worse consequence than the evil we pretend to cure by it Let the Rules and Modes of Goverment Discipline Public Worship be most exact and blameless yet there will be faults in Governours and Ministers as long as they are but Men. We must not expect in this World a Church without spot or wrinkle that consists only of Saints in which nothing can be found amiss especially by those who lie at the catch and wait for an advantage against it Men must be willing if ever they wou'd promote Peace and Unity to put candid Constructions and Favourable Interpretations upon Things and not strain them on purpose that they may raise more considerable Objections against them 6. If these and the like Considerations will not conquer a Man's Scruples then let him lay them aside and act against them But here I easily imagine some ready presently to ask me Do you persuade us to Conform to the Orders of the Church tho' we are not satisfy'd in our Minds concerning them I answer That I think this is the best Advice that can be given to such Scrupulous Persons It wou'd be an endless thing and Communion with any Church wou'd be altogether unpracticable if every private Christian was obliged to suspend joining himself to it till he was perfectly satisfy'd about the reasonableness and expediency of all that was requir'd or was in use in that Church For indeed private Persons are by no means proper Judges of what is fit and convenient in the Administration of Church-Goverment Discipline or public Worship any more than they are of matters of State or the Reasonableness of all Civil Laws Things of a Public Nature belong to Superiours and if they Appoint what is Indecent or Inconvenient they only are Accountable for it but 't is not the Fault of Inferiours who join with such Worship or yeild to such Injunctions not plainly sinful for the sake of Peace and Order I do not by this encourage Men to venture blindfold on Sin or to neglect any reasonable care of their Actions but if People raise all the Difficulties and objections they can start before they proceed to a Resolution about things that have no manifest Impiety in them nor are plainly nor by any easy consequence contrary to the reveal'd Will of God this cannot but occasion infinite Perplexity and Trouble to Mens minds and there are but few things they shall be able to do with a safe and quiet Conscience Before we separate from a Church or refuse to comply with it's Orders we ought to be fully satisfy'd and persuaded that what is requir'd is forbidden by God because by leaving the Communion of any Church we pass Sentence upon it and condemn it which ought not to be done upon light and doubtful Causes But there is not the same necessity that we shou'd be thus fully satisfy'd about our Conformity to all things prescrib'd by the Church We may presume them to be innocent unless they plainly appear to us otherwise If any one think that this Principle will introduce Popery and make People without any examination submit to every Thing which their Superiours please to impose upon them let him only Consider that there are many things in Popery which God has manifestly forbidden which render our Separation from it necessary whereas ours are at the worst only doubtful or rather not so Good as might be Devis'd and this surely makes a wide Difference in the Case But do's not St. Paul say Rom. 14.14 I know and am persuaded by the Lord Jesus that there is nothing Vnclean of it self but to him that esteemeth any thing Vnclean it is unclean Do's he not say He that doubteth is damn'd if he eat v. 23. and that whatsoever is not of faith is sin I answer Yes But then when I speak of a Scrupulous Conscience I suppose the Person tolerably well persuaded of the lawfulness of what is to be done but yet he has some little Exceptions against it he do's not think it best and fittest all things consider'd This is properly a Scruple and is certainly the case of all those who do sometimes join in our Worship which they cou'd not do did they judge it absolutely sinful So that tho' it shou'd be granted that a Man cannot innocently do that of which his Conscience doubts whether it be Lawful or no which case I have discours'd of in the foregoing Chapter yet a Man may and in some cases is bound to do that which is not Unlawful tho' upon some other accounts he Scruples the doing of it Now if we have no very Weighty Reason for the doing of them then it may be the safest way to forbear all such things as we scruple at Of such Cases the Apostle speaks in the fore-mentioned places of eating or not eating some Meats neither of them was requir'd by Law Eating was no Instance of Duty nor was it any waies forbid Christians Where to do or not to do is perfectly at our own choice it is best for a Man to forbear doing that which he has some suspicion of tho' he be not sure that it is sinful As suppose a Man have Scruples in his Mind about playing at Cards and Dice or going to see Stage-plays or putting out his Money to Usury because there is no great Reason or Necessity for any of these things and to be sure they may be innocently forborn without any detriment to our selves or others tho' we do not judge them absolutely sinful yet it is safest for him who cannot satisfy himself concerning the Goodness and Fitness of them wholly to deny himself the use of them But in these two cases it is most for the quiet of our Consciences to act against or notwithstanding our Fears and Scruples when either our Superiours to whom we owe Obedience have interpos'd their Commands or when by it we prevent some great Evil or Mischieâ— 1. All Fears and Scruples only about the Conveniency and Expediency of Things ought to be despis'd when they come in Competition with the Duty of Obedience Wou'd Men but think themselves in Conscience bound to pay the same Duty and Respect to the Judgment and Authority of Magistrates and Governours whether in Church or State as they do expect their Servants and Children shou'd to themselves they wou'd soon see the reasonableness of such Submissions For all Goverment and Subjection wou'd be very precarious and arbitrary if every one that did not approve of a Law or was not fully satisfy'd about the reasonableness of it was thereby excepted from all Obligations to obey it This is to give the Supreme Authority to the most humoursome or perverse sort of Christians for according
of his Body and Blood as Christians and not as Politicians Let these great truths sink into your hearts and consider I beseech you what you are doing Be well advis'd before you venture upon that which makes you guilty of a sin of the blackest Nature Be not blinded by Prejudice or Passion nor take Opinions upon trust but search and examine into the truth Consciences truly tender are willing and desirous to embrace all Opportunities of Resolution and are ready to kiss the hand that wou'd bring them better Information They will not neglect much less thrust from them the means that might ease them of their Doubts and Scruples But it looks very odly that so many of you are no more concern'd to understand the true State of the Church of England and the Nature and Reasons of her Constitutions that so few of you care to confer with those that are able to instruct you but cry out You are satisfy'd already nay some of you to my knowledge when desir'd to propose your Scruples in order to the Giving you Satisfaction have plainly and absolutely refus'd to do it There is little reason to believe that such Persons have ever read and examin'd what the Church of England has to say for her self Are there not many that not only Scruple but rail at the Book of Common-Prayer that yet never heard it nor perhaps ever read it in all their Lives And if this be not to speak evil of what they know not I cannot tell what is You generally forbear our Public Worship upon no other ground but because you prefer your own arbitrary way before it whereas I may take the Confidence to affirm that our Liturgy was made and revis'd with that Prudence and Moderation that Care and Circumspection that there is nothing now extant in that kind that has been compos'd with greater Wisdom and Piety If I shou'd compare it with the Performances in the other way not to mention the many indecent incoherent irreverent Expressions to say no worse that might be collected let any Extempore Prayer made by the ablest of those that magnify that way and despise ours be taken in writing and publish'd to the World and I am confident that one Man without any great pains may find more things really exceptionable in that single Prayer in a short time than the several Parties of Dissenters with all the Diligence they have hitherto us'd have been able to discover in the whole Service of our Church in more than an hundred Years And yet some of you that seek industriously for Scruples in the Common-Prayer will readily join in Extempore Prayers without any Scruple This is such Partiality and unequal Dealing as cannot easily be excus'd 'T is true the early Prepossession of a contrary Opinion the powerful Prejudices of Education an implicit and unexamin'd belief of what their Guides and Leaders teach them have a strange force upon the minds of Men so that in effect they no more doubt of the truth and goodness of the Cause they are engaged in than they question the Articles of their Creed These and the like are very dangerous and usual Mistakes that do frequently proceed from the Prevalency of our Passions Now the first step towards Concord in Opinion and Affections is to dispose your Minds to a calm and teachable Temper to be alwaies ready to acknowledge the force of an Argument tho' it contradict your persuasions never so much Wherefore I do once and again intreat you that laying aside all Pride Partiality and Self-conceit you wou'd not think more highly of your selves and of your own way than you ought to think Truth makes the easiest entrance into Modest and Humble Minds The Meek will he guide in judgment the Meek will he teach his Way The Spirit of God never rests upon the proud Man But especially you must be very careful that Secular Interest did not either engage you in the Separation at the beginning or provoke you to continue in it And there is the more reason to put you upon this Inquiry not only because Secular Ends are very apt to mix with and shelter themselves under the shadow of Religion but because this has been an old Artifice made use of to promote Separation Thus the Donatists upheld their Separation and kept their Party fast together by trading only within themselves and imploying none but those that wou'd be of their side nay and sometimes hiring Persons to be Baptiz'd into their Party as Crispin did the People of Mappalia And how evident the same Policy is among our modern Quakers is too notorious to need either Proof or Observation Whoever looks into the Nation must needs take notice how Interests are form'd and by what methods Parties and Factions are kept up how many thousands of the poorer sort of you depend upon this or that Man for your Work and Livelyhood how many of you depend upon others for your Trade whom accordingly those Men can readily Command and do produce to give Votes and increase Parties on all public Occasions and what little encouragement any Man finds from you that deserts you and comes over to the Church of England Let me beseech you therefore impartially to examine your selves and to search whether a worldly spirit be not at the bottom of your Zeal and Stifness These I confess are Designs too base and sordid to be own'd above-board but Be not deceiv'd God is not mock'd Man looks to the outward Appearance but God looks to the Heart If you hope to gain and grow rich by your Separation if you are asham'd or scorn to retract your Opinions if you imagine you have more Light than the first Reformers when indeed you are very ignorant if you cannot endure to be oppos'd in any thing if you murmur and repine at your Governours when they require your Obedience where you are unwilling to pay it these are Signs that your affections are turbulent and unruly and while you are thus dispos'd you can never be assur'd but that Coveteousness Pride and Impatience might be the greatest Motives that induced you to make a Separation and the strongest Arguments that you have to maintain it But above all things I beseech you for the sake of your precious Souls to consider the Heinous Nature and Guilt of Schism which is nothing else but the separating your selves from a true Church without any just occasion given I doubt you are not sufficiently sensible how much you oppose that Spirit of Peace and Brotherly Love which shou'd diffuse it self thro' the whole Body of Christian People when you suppose every slender Pretence enough to justify your departing from us and setting up a Church against a Church The Old Non-Conformists charg'd the People to be as tender of Church-Division as they were of Drunkenness Whoredom or any other enormous Crimes whereas you seem to think it a matter almost indifferent and that you are left to your own choice to join with what
to this Principle no public Laws and Constitutions can be valid and binding unless every scrupulous tho' a very ignorant Conscience consent to them 2. We are not to mind or stand upon our Scruples when they probably occasion a great Evil or general Mischief They are not fit to be put in the ballance with the Peace of the Church and Unity of Christians Suppose for once that our public way of Worship is not the best that can be devis'd that many things might be amended in our Liturgy that we cou'd invent a more agreeable Establishment than this present is which yet no Man in the World can ever tell for we cannot know all the Inconveniencies of any alteration till it comes to be try'd yet granting all this it cannot be thought so intolerable an Evil as contempt of God's Solemn Worship dividing into Sects and Parties living in Debate Contention and Separation from one another If there be some Rites and Customs amongst us not wisely chosen or determin'd some Ceremonies against which just Exceptions may be made yet to forsake the Communion of such a true Church of Jesus Christ and set up a distinct Altar in opposition to it to combine and associate into separate Congregations is as it is somewhere express'd like knocking a Man on the Head because his Teeth are rotten or his Nails too long How much more agreeable is it to the Christian Temper to be willing to sacrifice all Doubts and Scruples to the Interests of public Order and Divine Charity For better surely it is to serve God in a defective manner to bear with many Disorders and Faults than to break the Bond of Peace and Brotherly Communion CHAP. XIV The pretence of Scandal or giving Offence to Weak Brethren Answer'd BUT there are some who tell us that they are indeed themselves sufficiently persuaded of the lawfulness of all that is injoin'd by the Church of England but then there are many other godly but weaker Christians of another persuasion with whom they have long been join'd And shou'd they now totally forsake them and Conform they shou'd thereby give great offence to all those tender Consciences which are not thus convinc'd of the lawfulness of holding Communion with our Church Which sin say they is so very great that our Saviour tells us Matth. 18.6 Whosoever shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me it were better for him that a mill-stone were hang'd about his neck and that he were drown'd in the depth of the sea and in St. Paul's account 't is no less than spiritual murther a destroying him for whom Christ dy'd Rom. 14.15 These Persons I design to answer in this Chapter by shewing that No private Christian as the case now stands amongst us is obliged to absent himself from his Parish-Church for fear of Offending or Scandalizing his Weak Brethren And this I shall do by inquiring 1. What is the true Notion of a Weak Brother 2. What it is to Offend such an one 3. How far and in what instances we are bound to consider the Weakness of our Brother I. Then a Weak Brother or weak in Faith in Scripture language denotes one newly converted to Christianity and so neither throughly instructed in the Principles nor well setled in the practice of it the same whom our Saviour calls a little one and the Apostle a babe in Christ 1 Cor. 3.1 Conversion to Christianity is call'd our New-birth and the Converts were for a while reckon'd as in an infant State and accordingly were to be most gently us'd till by degrees by the improvement of their knowledge they came to be of full Age Heb. 5.14 They were at first to be fed with Milk to be taught the easiest and plainest Doctrines and great Prudence and Caution was to be us'd toward them lest they shou'd suddenly fly back and repent of their change For they having been Jews and Gentiles retain'd still a great Love for many of their Old Customs and Opinions they had mighty and inveterate prejudices to overcome the Old Man was by degrees to be put off and therefore they were at first treated with all the tenderness and condescension imaginable The stronger and wiser Christians wou'd not stand rigidly on any little Matters but Tolerate many things which were necessary afterwards to be done away hoping that in time they might be brought off those mistakes they now labour'd under Hence I observe 1. That the Rules which are laid down in Scripture concerning Weak Brethren are not standing Laws equally obliging all Christians in all Ages but were suted to the Infant-state of the Church till Christianity had gotten firm footing in the World The Apostle's design in all his complyances was to win many to Christ 1 Cor. 9.19 Now to do as St. Paul did wou'd alwaies be the Duty and Wisdom of one in his circumstances who was to spread Christianity amongst Heathens and Infidels but his Directions and Practice do no more agree with our Times wherein Christianity is the National Religion than the same Cloaths which we did wear in our Infancy wou'd serve us now at our full Age. We ought indeed to remove every Straw out of Childrens way lest they stumble and fall but 't is ridiculous to use the same care towards grown Men. There is not now amongst us any such competition between Two Religions but every one learns Christianity as he do's his Mother-Tongue St. Paul wou'd not take that Reward that was due to him for Preaching the Gospel but himself labour'd hard night and day because he wou'd not be chargeable to his Converts 1 Thess 2.9 and this he did for the furtherance of the Gospel that all might see he did not serve his own Belly but surely our Dissenters do not think themselves obliged by this Example in places where public maintenance is setled on Ministers by Law to refuse to take it and earn their own Bread by some manual Occupation tho' thereby they avoid giving Offence to Quakers and those who call them Hirelings and say they prophesy only for filthy lucre In short there are no such Weak Persons now amongst us as those were for whom the Apostle provides or as those little ones were for whom our Saviour was so much concern'd 2. The Dissenters according to their weak opinion of themselves are of all Men the farthest off from being Weak Christians in any sense They who take upon themselves to be Teachers of others wiser and better than their Neighbours the only sober and godly Party and are too apt to despise all other Christians as ignorant or profane with what colour of Reason can they plead for any favour to be shewn or Regard to be had to them in complyance with their weakness Tho' they love to argue against us from the Example of St. Paul's condescension to the ignorant Jews or Gentiles yet it is apparent that they do not in other Cases willingly liken themselves to those weak Believers or
Babes in Christ They have really better thoughts of themselves and wou'd be Leaders and Masters in Israel and prescribe to their Governours and give Laws to all others and prefer their own private Opinion which they call their Conscience before the Judgment of the wisest Men or the Determinations of their lawful Superiours And if in all Instances we shou'd deal with them as weak Persons turn them back to their Primmer advise them to learn their Catechism they wou'd think themselves highly wrong'd and injur'd But the truth is they ordinarily look upon their Opposition to the Orders of our Church as the Effect of an higher Illumination a greater Knowledge than others have attain'd unto They rather count us the weak Christians if some of them will allow us so much for otherwise if they do not take us for the weaker and worse Christians Why do they separate from us Why do they associate and combine together into distinct Congregations as being purer more select Christians than others Now tho' such Persons as these may be in truth very weak of little Judgment or Goodness notwithstanding this Conceit of themselves and their Party yet these are not by any means to plead for Indulgence under that Character nor to expect we shou'd forego our Liberty to please and humour them 3. Those who are really weak that is ignorant and injudicious are to be born withal only for a time till they have receiv'd better instruction but we cannot be alwaies Babes in Christ without our own gross fault and neglect Such as will not yield to the clearest reason if it be against their Interest or their Party can upon no account claim the privileges of Weak Persons Of these our Saviour had no regard who were so unreasonable and obstinate in their opposition Matth. 15.14 Not that I wou'd be so uncharitable as to condemn all or the generality of Dissenters for being Malicious and wilful in their dissent from us but however 1. I beg them to examine whether they have sincerely endeavour'd to satisfy themselves and have devoutly pray'd to God to free their minds from prejudices and corrupt affections for otherwise their Weakness is no more to be pity'd than that Man's sickness who will not tho' he may be cur'd 2. I must say that old and inveterate Mistakes that have been a 1000 times answer'd and protested against are not much to be heeded by us If People will by no means be prevail'd upon to lay aside their fancies they do not deserve that compassion which St. Paul prescribes towards Weak Brethren In matters of a doubtful or suspicious nature that are capable of being misunderstood and abus'd yet if there be no Moral evil in them and the doing of them is of some considerable consequence to me I am bound to forbear them no longer than till I have endeavour'd to inform them rightly concerning the innocency of my action and intention and given them notice of the evil that might possibly happen to them If I dig a pit or lay a block in the way whereby others not knowing any thing of it are hurt and wounded I am guilty of causing them to fall but if they are plainly and often told of it and yet will run into the danger they are then only to thank themselves Now if it be thus in Cases that are liable to suspicion and misinterpretation it holds much more in the Orders of our Church where the Offence arises not so much from the Nature of the Injunctions as from Mens gross ignorance mis-conceit or perverseness This shall suffice to shew what is the true Notion of a Weak Brother II. I am now to shew what it is to offend such an one People are generally mistaken about the sense of offending or giving offence For by it they commonly understand displeasing or grieving another and making him angry with them and so they think themselves bound in Conscience to forbear all those things which Godly Persons do not like or approve of or are contrary to their Fancy or Judgment 'T is true there is one place that seems to favour this conceit Rom. 14.15 If thy brother be grieved with thy meat now walkest thou not charitably But it must be observ'd that by grieving our Brother is not meant displeasing but wounding and hurting him and so it is us'd to denote that which causeth grief or sorrow and is the same with destroying and putting a stumbling-block or an occasion to fall v. 15 21. To be offended or griev'd is not to be troubl'd at what another has done out of pity and concern for his Soul but to receive hurt our selves from it being drawn or deceiv'd into some sin by it But because many well-dispos'd People do think that they must not do any thing which good Men are displeas'd or griev'd at I desire them to consider a few things 1. That to censure and condemn and be displeas'd with the actions of those that differ from them or refuse to join any longer with them in their separate Congregations is a great instance of peevishness and uncharitableness and is that very sin which St. Paul often warns his Weak Believers against viz. that they shou'd not rashly judge those who understood their Christian Liberty better than themselves At this rate any company of Men that shall resolve to quarrel with all that do not do as they do must oblige all to remain forever with them for fear of giving them offence If what I do is not evil in it self it cannot become such because another Man is causlesly angry with me for doing of it 2. They that pretend that this fear of offending that is displeasing their Weak Brethren hinders their complyance with the Church ought seriously to examine themselves whether it is not really only the care of their credit and reputation with that Party or else the securing of some worldly interest that keeps them from Conformity 3. If to displease our Weak Brethren were the sinful offending him condemn'd by St. Paul it wou'd prove an intolerable yoke upon Mens Consciences and beget such endless perplexities that we shou'd not be able to do any thing tho' never so indifferent with a well-assur'd mind since one or other will in this sense be scandaliz'd at it We shall anger some by doing others by forbearing and since those who call themselves weak are divided into several factions each condemning all the other 't is impossible for us to comply with any one of them but we shall thereby displease all the rest 4. If we do nothing which may displease our Weak Brethren we do submit our Judgments and Consciences to the conduct of the most ignorant and injudicious Christians and yield them that authority over us which we deny to our lawful Superiours And 't is strange that those who think their Christian Liberty so much violated by the determinations of their Superiours about indifferent matters shou'd yet suffer themselves to be thus ty'd up