of this in the Four following Propositions First there is nothing more certain than that the Law of God as it is declared both by Nature and Scripture doth Command us to Obey the Laws of Men. There is no one Dictate of Nature more Obvious to us than this that we are to Obey the Government we Live under in all honest and Just things For this is indeed the Principal Law and Foundation of all Society And it would be impossible either for Kingdoms or States for Citys or Families to subsist or at least to maintain themselves in any Tolerable degree of Peace and Happiness if this be not acknowledged a Duty And then as for the Laws of God in Scripture there is nothing more plainly declared there than that it is Gods Will and our Duty to Obey them that have the Rule over us and to Submit our selves to every Ordinance of Man for the Lords sake and to be Subject not only for Wrath but for Conscience sake So that no Man can doubt that he is really bound in Duty to Obey the Laws of Men that are made by Just and Sufficient Authority And Consequently no Man can doubt that Humane Laws do really bind the Conscience and are one part of the Rule by which it is to be directed and Governed But then having said this we add this farther in the Second Place that Humane Laws do not bind the Conscience by any Vertue in themselves but meerly by Vertue of Gods Law who has Commanded that we should in all things be Subject to our Lawful Governours not only for Wrath but for Conscience sake Conscience is not properly concerned with any Being in the World save God alone it hath no Superiour but him For the very Notion of it as I have often said is no other than our Iudgment of what things we are bound to do by Gods Law what things we are Forbidden to do by Gods Law So that all the Men in the World cannot bind any Mans Conscience by Vertue of any Power or Authority that is in them But now God having made it an everlasting Law both by Nature and Scripture that we should Obey those who are set over us whether they be our Parents or our Masters and much more our Princes and the Soveraign Legislative Power under whom we Live by Vertue of this Command of God and this only we are for ever bound in Conscience to Govern our Actions by the Commands that they impose upon us and those Commands of theirs are a Rule though a Consequential or a Secondary Rule by which we are to Govern our Conscience because they are the Instances of our Obedience to the Laws of God But then in the Third Place this is also to be remembered that Humane Laws do no farther bind the Conscience and are a Rule of it than as they are agreeable to the Laws of God If any Law or Command of Man do Clash with any Law of God that is if it be either Evil in it self or Contradictory to the Duty of Christians as laid down in the Scriptures in that Case that Law or Command by what Humane Authority soever it was made or given doth not bind our Conscience nor is any Rule of our Actions On the contrary we are not at any Rate to yield Obedience to it but we are here reduced to the Apostles Case and must Act as they did that is we must Obey God rather than Men and we Sin if we do not For since God only hath proper and direct Authority over our Conscience and Humane Power only by Delegation from him And since God hath not given any Commission to the most Soveraign Princes upon Earth to alter his Laws or to impose any thing upon his Subjects that is inconsistent with them It follows by necessary Consequence that no Man can be Obliged to Obey any Laws of Men farther than they are agreeable to and consistent with the Laws of God There is yet a Fourth thing necessary to be taken in for the clearing the Point we are upon and that is this That though Humane Laws generally speaking may be said to bind the Conscience and to be a part of its Rule Yet we do not Assert that every Humane Law though it doth not interfere with any of Gods Laws doth at all times and in all Cases Oblige Every Mans Conscience to Active Obedience to it so as that he Sins against God if he Transgress it No it would be a very hard thing to affirm this and I do not know what Man among us upon these Terms would be Innocent Thus much I believe we may safely lay down as a Truth That where either the Matter of the Law is of such a Nature that the Publick or some private Person shall Suffer Damage or Inconvenience by our not Observing it Or Secondly Though the Law as to the matter of it be never so Trifling nay though perhaps all things considered it be an inconvenient Law yet if the Manner of our not Obeying it be such as gives Offence to our Superiours or to any others that is either Argues a Contempt of Authority or sets an ill Example before our fellow Subjects I say in either of these Cases the Transgression of a Humane Law renders a Man guilty of a Fault as well as Obnoxious to the Penalty of that Law But out of these two Cases I must confess I do not see how a purely Humane Law doth Oblige the Conscience or how the Transgression of it doth make a Man guilty of Sin before God For it is certain if we secure these two Points that is to say the good of the Publick and of private Persons and with all the sacredness and respect which is due to Authority which is likewise in Order to the Publick good We Answer all the Ends for which the Power of making Laws or laying Commands upon Inferiours was Committed by God to Mankind So that though it be true that Humane Laws do Oblige the Conscience yet it is also true that a great many Cases may and do happen in which a Man may Act contrary to a purely Humane Law and yet not be a Sinner before God Always supposing as I said there be no Contempt or Refractoryness expressed towards the Governours Nor no Scandal or ill Example given to others by the Action For if there be either of these in the Case I dare not acquit the Man from being a Transgressour of Gods Law in the instance wherein he Transgresseth the Laws of Men. For this is that which we insist upon that the Authority of our Governours ought to be held and esteemed very sacred both because the Laws of God and the Publick good require it should be so And herefore wherever they do peremptorily lay their Commands upon us we are bound in Conscience so far to comply as not to contest the matter with them nor to seem to do it And though their Commands as to the matter of them be
Actions and to forbear others whatever our Judgment concerning them is And consequently we may be Guilty of Sin if in these instances we Act contrary to this Obligation though at the same time it should happen that we are firmly perswaded that we ought so to do And thus is our Proposition fully proved but then for the further clearing of it I desire it may be taken notice of that we do not thus lay it down that every mistake of Judgment about Good or Evil doth involve a Man in Sin if he Act according to that mistake But only thus the mistake of a Mans Judgment may be of such a Nature that as it will be a a Sin in him to Act against it so it will likewise be Sin to Act according to it It is not every Error in Morals that brings a Man under the necessity of Sinning if he pursues it in his Actions A Mans Conscience may mistake its Rule in a Hundred instances and yet he may safely enough Act according to it And the Reason is because a Man may entertain a great many mistakes mistakes and false Notions of his Duty and Act according to them too and yet in such Actions he shall not Transgress any Law of God Now this that I say holds chiefly in these two instances For example in the first place if a Man believe a thing to be Commanded by God which yet indeed is not but neither is it Forbidden As if a Man should think himself Obliged to retire himself from his business Seven times or Three times a Day for the purpose of Devotion or to give half of his Yearly Income to Pious and Charitable uses if he can do it without Prejudice to his family Now in this Case he is certainly mistaken in his Duty for the Law of God hath not bound him up to such measures in either of these instances But yet because God hath not on the other hand laid any Commands upon him to the contrary it is certain he may in both these instances Act according to this mistake without any Guilt in the World Nay so long as that mistake continues he is bound to Act accordingly Again in the second place if a Man believe a thing to be Forbidden by Gods Law which yet is not but neither is it Commanded As for instance if a Man think that he ought by Vertue of a Divine Command to abstain from all Meats that are strangled or have Bloud in them or if he believe it unlawful to Play at Cards or Dice or that it is Forbidden by Gods word to let out Money at Interest Why in all these Cases he may follow his Opinion though it be a false one without Sin Nay he is bound to follow it because it is the dictate of his Conscience however his Conscience be mistaken And the reason is plain because though he be mistaken in his Judgment about these matters yet since God hath not by any Law Forbid these things there is no Transgression follows upon Acting according to such a mistake But then in other Cases where a Mans mistake happens to be of such a Nature as that he cannot Act according to his Conscience but he Transgresseth some Law of God by which Conscience ought to be Governed As for instance when a Man looks upon that as a Lawful Action or as a Duty which God hath Forbidden or looks upon that as a Sin or at least an indifferent Action which God hath Commanded here it is that the mistake becomes dangerous And in such Cases the Man is brought into that sad Dilemma we have been representing viz. That if he Act according to his perswasion he Transgresseth Gods Law and so is a Sinner upon that Account If he Acts against his perswasion then he is self condemned and very guilty before God upon that Account Well but is there no avoiding of this Must it be laid down as a constant Universal Truth that in all Cases where a Mans Judgment happens to be contrary to the Rule of his Duty Commanding or Forbidding an Action he must of necessity Sin whether he Act or not Act according to that Judgment If indeed he Act against his Conscience it is readily granted he Sins But it seems very hard that he should be under a necessity of Sinning when he Acts according to it especially when he is perfectly ignorant of or mistaken in the Law against which he Offends This is indeed the great difficulty that occurs in this matter and for the untying it I lay down this third general Proposition viz. That the great thing to be attended to in this Case of a Mans following a mistaken Iudgment is the Culpableness or Inculpableness 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 We do not say that a Man is always Guilty of a Sin before God when upon a misinformation of judgment he Omits that which Gods Law hath Commanded or doth that which Gods Law hath Forbidden No though these Omissions or Actions may be said to be Sins in themselves that is as to the Matter of them as being Transgressions of Gods Law Yet before we affirm that they will be imputed to a Man as such that is prove formally Sins to him we first consider the Nature of the Action and the Circumstances of the Man If we find upon Examination that the instance wherein Gods Law is Transgressed is such an instance as even an Honest minded Man may well be supposed to mistake in And if we find likewise that the Man had not sufficient means for the informing himself aright as to this matter and that he hath done all that he could do in his Circumstances to understand his Duty If in such a Case as this he be mistaken in his Duty and Act upon that mistake yet we do not say that the Man is properly Guilty of any Sin in that Action however that Action is indeed contrary to the Law of God On the contrary we believe him to be Innocent as to this matter nor will God ever call him to an Account for what he hath done or omitted in these Circumstances And the Reasons and Grounds upon which we affirm this are plain and Evident at the first hearing No Man can be Obliged to do more then what is in his Power to do And what ever a Man is not Obliged to do it is no Sin in him if he do it not So that if a Man do all that one in his Circumstances can or should do for the right understanding of his Duty If he happens to be mistaken that mistake cannot be imputed to him as a Sin because he was not Obliged to understand better And if his mistake be no Sin it is certain to Act according to that mistake can be no Sin neither So that the whole point of Sinning or not Sinning in following an
Examine But then I say this Plea proceeds upon the same grounds I just now laid down For if the Man as is supposed in the Case be convinced that it is his Duty by Gods Law as there is no other measure of Duty to hold Communion with others and not with us then he must at the same time be convinced that he cannot without Transgression of Gods Law that is without Sin joyn with us And that is the same Account which we give of its being against any Mans Conscience to hold Communion with us Further If it be urged against our Proposition that not only in the Case where a Man is perswaded of the Unlawfulness of our Communion but also in the Case where he only doubts of the Lawfulness of it a Man may justly plead Conscience for his Nonconformity so long as those doubts remain And therefore it is not truly said of us that in Order to the Pleading Conscience for Nonconformity one must be perswaded in his own mind that Conformity is Forbidden by some Law of God I Answer that if the Man who thus doubts of the Lawfulness of Conformity hath really entertain'd this Principle that it is a Sin to do any thing with a doubting Conscience I grant that it must go against his Conscience to conform so long as he doubts But then this is but the same thing we are contending for for therefore it goes against his Conscience to Communicate with us doubting as he doth because he believes he shall Sin against God if he should But if the Man we are speaking of do not think it a breach of Gods Law to Act with a doubting Conscience then I do not see how it can in the least go against his Conscience to Communicate with us upon that pretence So that notwithstanding these two Exceptions which are all I can think of it will still remain true that no Man can justly Plead Conscience for his Separation from the Church but he that is perswaded that he cannot joyn with it without Sinning against God Now if this Proposition be true as certainly it is then how many Mens pretences to Conscience for their Separating from us are hereby cut off And indeed how few in Comparison of the multitude of Dissenters among us will be left that can be able with Truth to say that it is against their Conscience to Communicate with us in our Prayers and in our Sacraments In the first Place it is Evident that all those who Separate from us upon Account of any private grudge or pique because they have been disobliged or have received some disappointment in the way of our Church or by the Men that are favourers of it and therefore out of a Pet will joyn themselves to another Communion All those that think they can serve their own turns more effectually by being of another way as for instance they can thereby better please a Relation from whom they have expectances they can better advance their Trade or increase their Fortunes they can better procure a Reputation or regain one that is Sunk In a word all those that to serve any ends of Pride or Interest or Passion or out of any other wordly Consideration do refuse us their Company in the Worship of God I say all such are certainly excluded from Pleading Conscience for their Separation In the second Place all those Lay People who refuse our Communion upon Account that the Pastors and Teachers whom they most Love and Reverence are not permitted to Exercise their Function among us whose Pretence it is that if these good Men were allowed to Teach in our Churches they would come to our Congregations but so long as that is refused they will hear them where they can I say all these are likewise excluded from Pleading Conscience for their Separation For however it may really and truly be against the Conscience of their Ministers to conform there being other things required of them than of ordinary People yet it is not against their Conscience so to do for they know no ill in Conformity but only that so many good Men are silenced In the third Place all those that refuse our Communion upon a meer dislike of several things in our Church Offices They do not for instance like a Form of Prayer in general and they have several things to Object against our Form in particular they do not like our Ceremonies they do not like the Surplice or the Cross in Baptism and sundry other things they find fault with Not that they have any thing to say against the Lawfulness of these things but only they have an Aversion to them All these Men likewise are cut off from Pleading Conscience for their Separation For they do not pretend that it is unlawful or a Sin against God to joyn with us in our Service which is the only thing wherein their Conscience can be concerned but only they are not pleased with many things in our Service as fancying them not to be so decent or convenient or not to be so prudently Order'd as they would have them But what of all this Admit the things to be so as they fancy them yet still so long as they do not think there is any Sin in them it cannot go against their Conscience to joyn with any Assembly in which they are Practised Because Conscience as we have often said is not touched is not affected where no Law of God is Transgressed In the fourth Place all those that are kept from our Communion purely upon the Account of Education or acquaintance with Persons that are of another perswasion Those that have nothing to say against our Worship but only that they were bred in another way or those that would joyn with us in it but that they know a great many Religious Godly Persons that do Condemn it and therefore they dare not come at us These now may be very well meaning Men but yet they cannot reasonably Plead Conscience upon this Account for their Separation For it is not a Mans Education or the Example or Opinion of other Men that makes any Action to be a Duty or a Sin but the Law of God Commanding or Forbidding that Action And therefore before I can say that this or the other Action is against my Conscience I must believe that Gods Law hath either in general or in particular either directly or by Consequence made that Action unlawful I grant the Opinions of other Men especially those that are Learned and Pious are always to be listned to in doubtful Cases But then no Mans Opinion can be the Rule of my Conscience nor am I at all concerned in Conscience to follow it any farther than I am convinced that it declares Gods Law to me And therefore sure in this Case of Church Communion I can be but very little concerned to follow any Mans Opinion when both there are so many Persons and those as Learned and as Pious as any others that are
Gods Law hath made so and nothing can be a Sin but what Gods Law hath forbidden the very Notion of Sin being that it is a Transgression of the Law and lastly we call a thing Lawful or Indifferent upon this very account that there is no Law of God either Commanding or Forbidding it and where there is no Law there is no Transgression So that undeniably the great nay I say the only Rule by which Conscience is to be Governed is the Law of God considered either as it Commands Actions or Forbids them or as it neither Commands them nor Forbids them But in order to the giving a more distinct account of this Rule of Conscience there is this needful to be enquired into viz. In what Sense we take or what we mean by the Law of God when we say it is the Rule of Conscience Now to this our Answer is That by the Law of God we here understand Gods Will for the Government of Mens Actions in what way soever that Will is declared to them Now the will of God is declared to Men two ways either by Nature or by Revelation so that the just and adequate Rule of Conscience is made up of two parts the Law of Nature and Gods Revealed Law By the Law of Nature we mean those Principles of Good and Evil Just and Unjust which God hath Stamp'd upon the Minds of all Men in the very Constitution of their Natures There are some things Eternally good in themselves Such as to Worship God to Honour our Parents to stand to our Covenants to Live Peaceably in the Government from which we receive Protection and the contrary to these will be Eternally Evil the Heads of all which things thus good in themselves are writ so plainly and Legibly in the Minds of Mankind that there is no Man who is come to the use of his Reason but must of necessity be convinced that to Practice these things will alway be his Duty and not to Practice them will always be Evil and a Sin Now all these Heads and Principles put together is that we call the Law of Nature and this is all the Rule of Conscience that Mankind had before God was pleased to discover his Will by more particular Revelation And this is that Law which the Apostle speaks of when he saith that the Gentiles who had not the Law of Moses yet had a Law written in their Hearts by their Acting according to which or contrary to which their Conscience did bear Witness to them and did either Accuse them or Excuse them But then Secondly to us Christians God to this Law of Nature hath superadded a Revealed Law which is contained in the Books of Holy Scriptures Which Revealed Law yet is not wholly of a different kind from the former nor doth it at all void the Obligation of it But only thus God hath in his Revealed Law declared the Precepts of the Law of Nature more certainly and accurately than before He hath given greater Force and Strength to them than they had before by the Sanctions of greater Rewards and Punishments He hath likewise herein perfected the Law of Nature and hath Obliged us in point of Duty to more and higher Instances of Vertue than Nature did strictly Oblige us to And Lastly He hath added some Positive Laws for us to observe which were not at all contained in the Law of Nature as for instance to believe in Iesus Christ in order to Salvation to make all our Applications to God in the Name of that Mediatour Christ Iesus to enter into a Christian Society by Baptism and to Exercise Communion with that Society by partaking of the Lords Supper And this is that Law which we Christians are Obliged to as well as to the Law of our Natures and which as it is a Summary of all the Laws of Nature so indeed is it a Summary of all our Duty So that if any Man will call it the great or only Rule of Christian Conscience I shall not much oppose him provided that this be always Remembred that In the Third Place when we say that the Natural and Revealed Law of God is the just Rule by which we are to Govern our Conscience or when we say that the Law of God as Revealed and contained in the Bible is to us Christians the just Rule We are so to understand this Proposition as to take into it not only all that is directly and expresly Commanded or Forbidden by either of those Laws But also all that by plain Collection of Right Reason in Applying Generals to Particulars or comparing one thing with another doth appear to be Commanded or Forbidden by them So that by the Law of Nature as it is a Rule of Conscience we are not only to understand the prime Heads and most general Dictates of it which are but a few but also all the necessary Deductions from those Heads And by the Law of Scripture as it is the Rule of Conscience we are not only to understand the express Commands and Prohibitions we meet with there in the letter of the Text but all the things likewise that by unavoidable Consequence do follow from those Commands or Prohibitions In a word when we are deliberating with our selves concerning the goodness or badness the Lawfulness or Unlawfulness of this or the other particular Action We are not only to look upon the letter of the Law but to attend further to what that Law may be supposed by a Rational Man to contain in it And if we be convinced that the Action we are deliberating about is Commanded or Forbidden by direct Inference or by Parity of Reason we ought to look upon it as a Duty or a Sin though it be not expresly Commanded or Forbidden by the Law in the letter of it And if neither by the letter of the Law nor by Consequence from it nor by Parity of Reason the Action before us appear either to be Commanded or Forbidden In that Case we are to look upon it as an indifferent Action which we may do or let alone with a safe Conscience or to express the thing more properly we are to look upon it as an Action in which our Conscience is not so much concerned as our Prudence III. Having thus given an account of the Rule of Conscience that which Naturally follows next to be considered with Reference to our present design is what share Humane Laws have in this Rule of Conscience whether they be a part of this Rule and do really bind a Mans Conscience to the Observance of them or no which is our Third general Head Now as to this our Answer is that though the Laws of God be the great and indeed the only Rule of Conscience yet the Laws of Men generally speaking do also bind the Conscience and are a part of its Rule in a Secondary Sense that is by Vertue of and in Subordination to the Laws of God I shall briefly explain the meaning
excuseable The Case is much the same as to the matter we have now before us It is not a meer Humane Law or Act of Parliament that Obligeth us to keep the Unity of the Church to bring our Children to be made Christians by Baptisme to meet together at Solemn times for the Profession of our Faith for the Worshipping God for the Commemorating the Death of our Saviour in the Sacrament of his Supper All this is tyed upon us by the Laws of Christ. These things are as much required of us by God as Christians as it is required that we should Pay the King and every Man what is due to them if we would not be dishonest unjust It is true that the particular Forms and Modes and Circumstances of doing these things are not Commanded nor Prescribed by the Laws of Christ in this Instance of Church Communion no more than they are prescribed by the Laws of God in the other Instance I gave But they are left intirely to the Prudence and Discretion of the Governours that God hath set over us in Ecclesiastical matters just as they are in the other But in the mean time these things thus Clothed by Humane Authority as to their Circumstances Yet being for the Matter of them bound upon us by Christ himself we can no more deny our Obedience to the Publick Laws about them than we can in the other Instance I have named And that Man may as well for Instance purge himself from the Imputation of Knavery before God that will contrive a way of his own for the Paying his just Debts contrary to what the Law of the Land hath declared to be Just and Honest As any Man can acquit himself from the Sin of Schism before God that will chuse a way of his own for the Publick Worship different from and in Opposition to what the Laws of the Church have prescribed always supposing that the Worship Established be Commanded by just Authority and there be nothing required in it as a Condition of Communion that is against the Laws of Iesus Christ. The sum of all this is that it is every Mans Duty by the Laws of Christ as well as the Laws of Man to Worship God in the way of the Church so long as there is nothing required in that Worship that can justly offend the Conscience of a Wise and Good Christian And therefore there is more in departing from the Communion of the Church when we can Lawfully hold it than meerly the Violation of a Statute or a Humane Law for we cannot do it without breaking the Law of God Nay so much is it against the Law of God to do this that I think no Authority upon Earth can warrant it So that even if there was a Law made which should Ordain that wilful causless Separation from the Established Church should be allowed and tolerated and no Man should be called to an Account for it Yet nevertheless such a Separation would still be a Schism would still be a Sin against God for no Humane Law can make that Lawful which Gods Law hath forbid There now only remains our last general Head about Conscience to be spoken to and then we have done with our Preliminary Points And that is concerning the Authority of Conscience or how far a Man is Obliged to follow or be guided by his Conscience in his Actions When we speak of the Obligation of Conscience or of being bound in Conscience to do or not to do an Action it sufficiently appears from what hath been said that we can mean no more by these Phrases than this that we are convinced in our Judgment that it is our Duty to do this or the other Action because we believe that God hath Commanded it Or we are perswaded in our Judgment that we ought to forbear this or the other Action because we believe that God hath forbidden it This now being that which we mean by the Obligation of Conscience here we come to inquire how far this Perswasion or Judgment of ours concerning what is our Duty and what is Sinful hath Authority over us how far it doth Oblige us to Act or not Act according to it Now in Order to the resolving of this we must take Notice that our Judgment concerning what God hath Commanded or Forbidden or left Indifferent is either true or false We either make a right Judgment of our Duty or we make a wrong one In the former Case we call our Judgment a Right Conscience in the latter we call it an Erroneous Conscience As for those Cases where we doubt and hesitate and know not well how to make any Judgment at all which is that we call a Doubting Conscience but indeed is properly no Conscience unless by Accident we have nothing here to do with them but shall reserve them to another place Here we suppose that we do make a Judgment of the thing that is we are perswaded in our Minds concerning the goodness or badness of this or the other Action And that which we are to inquire into is how far that Judgment binds us to Act according to it Now if our Conscience be a Right Conscience that is if we have truly informed our Judgment according to the Rule of Gods Law It is beyond all Question and acknowledged by all the World that we are in that Case perpetually bound to Act according to our Judgment It is for ever our Duty so to do and there can no blame no guilt fall upon us for so doing let the Consequence of our Acting or not Acting be what it will So that as to a Right Conscience or a well informed Judgment there is no dispute among any sort of Men. But the great thing to be inquired into is what Obligation a Man is under to Act according to his Judgment supposing it be false supposing he hath not rightly informed his Conscience but hath taken up false measures of what God hath Commanded or Forbidden Now for the Resolution of this I lay down these Three Propositions which I think will take in all that is needful for the giving Satisfaction to every one concerning this point First Where a Man is mistaken in his Iudgment even in that Case it is always a Sin to Act against it Be our Conscience never so ill instructed as to what is Good or Evil though we should take that for a Duty which is really a Sin and on the contrary that for a Sin which is really a Duty Yet so long as we are thus persuaded it will be highly Criminal in us to Act in contradiction to this persuasion and the reason of this is evident because by so doing we wilfully Act against the best light which at present we have for the direction of our Actions and consequently our Will is as faulty and as wicked in consenting to such Actions as if we had had truer Notions of things We are to remember that the Rule of our Duty
Erroneous Conscience lies here Whether the Man that is thus mispersuaded is to be blamed or not blamed for his Mispersuasion If the Error he hath taken up do not proceed from his own Fault and Negligence but was the pure unavoidable Effects of the Circumstances in which he is placed which Circumstances we suppose he contributed nothing to but he was put into them by the disposition of Divine Providence Then of what Nature soever the Error be he doth not contract any guilt by any Action which he doth in pursuance of that Error But if it was in his power to Rectifie that Error if he had Means and Opportunities to inform his Conscience better and the nature of the Action was such that it was his Duty so to do So that he must be accounted guilty of a Gross and Criminal Neglect in not doing it In this Case the Man is a Transgressor and accountable unto God as such for all the Actions that he doth or omits contrary to Gods Law while he Acts under that mistake or in pursuance of it And accordingly as this Neglect or Carelesness is greater or less so is the Sinfulness of the Action which he doth in pursuance of it greater or less likewise And this is a plain account of this matter So that we see there is no Fatal unavoidable necessity laid upon any Man to commit a Sin by Acting according to his Conscience But if at any time he be brought under those sad Circumstances he brings that necessity upon himself God never put any Man into such a Condition but that he might do that Duty which was required of him and be able to give a good account of his Actions But here is the thing Men by their Vice and Wickedness by neglecting the Means of Instruction that are afforded them and not using their Reason and Understanding as they should do may suffer themselves to be brought under the Bondage of such False and Evil Principles that they shall so long as they hold those Principles fall into Sin whether they Act according to their Conscience or Act against it I have done with the general Points concerning Conscience which I thought needful to be premised as the Grounds and Principles of our following Discourse I now come to that which I at first proposed and for the sake of which all this is intended 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 Now all that I conceive needful to be done in order to a full discussion of this Case and giving satisfaction about it are these Two things First To Separate the pretences of Conscience that are truly and justly made in this matter from the false ones Or to shew who those are that can rightly plead Conscience for their Nonconformity and who those are that cannot Secondly To inquire how far this Plea of Conscience when it is truly made will Iustifie any Dissenter that continnes in Separation from the Church as Established among us and what is to be done by such a Person in order to his Acting with a safe and good Conscience in this affair Our first inquiry is what is required in order to any Mans truly pleading Conscience for his refusing to joyn in Communion with the Established Church Or who those Persons are that can with justice make that Plea for themselves I think it very convenient to begin my Disquisition here because by removing all the false Pretences to Conscience the Controversy will be brought into a much less compass and the difficulties that arise will be more easily untyed The truth is if the thing be examined I believe it will be found that the pretence to Conscience in the matter we are talking of is as in many other Cases extended much farther than it ought to be My meaning is that of all those who think fit to withdraw from our Communion and to live in Disobedience to the known Laws of the Church and pretend Conscience for so doing in a great many of them it is not Conscience but some other thing mistaken for Conscience which is the Principle they Act upon So that if the true Plea of Conscience be separated from those counterfeit ones which usually usurp that Name we shall not find either the Persons to be so many that refuse Communion with us upon the Account of Conscience truly so called nor the Cases to be so many in which they do refuse it upon that Account Now in Order to the making such a Separation or Distinction between Conscience truly so called and the several Pretences to it in this business of not conforming to the Established Worship I lay down this general Proposition That if the Principles I have laid down about Conscience be admitted then it is certainly true that no Man among us can justly plead Conscience for his Separation from the Church of England or can say that it is against his Conscience to joyn in Communion with it but only such a one as is perswaded in his own mind that he cannot Communicate with us without Sinning against God in so doing For since as we have said Conscience is nothing else but a Mans Judgment concerning Actions whether they be Duties or Sins or Indifferent And since the Law of God Commanding or Forbidding Actions or neither Commanding them nor Forbidding them is the only Rule by which a Man can Judg what Actions are Duties and what are Sins and what are Indifferent It plainly follows that as a Man cannot be bound in Conscience to do any Action which it doth not appear to him that Gods Law hath some way or other Commanded and made a Duty So neither can it go against a Mans Conscience to do any Action which he is not convinced that Gods Law hath some way or other Forbidden and so made a Sin And therefore in our present Case That Man only can justly plead Conscience for his Nonconformity that can truly say he is perswaded in his Judgment that Conformity is Forbidden by some Law of God Or which is the same thing No Man can say it is against his Conscience to joyn in our Communion but only such a one as really believes he shall Sin against some Law of God if he do joyn with us If against this it be excepted that it is very possible for a Man to be well satisfied that there is nothing directly Sinful in our Worship but yet for all that it may be against his Conscience to joyn with us in it As for instance in the Case where a Man takes it really to be his Duty to hold constant Communion with some other Congregation where he believes he can be more Edified or to which he is related by some Church Covenant To this I answer that in this Case I grant Conscience is rightly pleaded for Separation though how justifiably I do not now
A DISCOURSE CONCERNING Conscience WHEREIN An Account is given of the Nature and Rule and Obligation of it AND The Case of those who Separate from the Communion of the Church of England as by Law Established upon this Pretence that it is Against their Conscience to joâ—n in it is stated and discussed LONDON Printed for Walter Kettilby at the Bishops Head in St. Pauls Church-Yard 1684. A DISCOURSE OF CONSCIENCE With Respect to those that Separate from the Communion of the Church of England upon the Pretence of it c. THere is nothing more in our Mouths than Conscience and yet there are few things we have generally taken less Pains to understand We sit down too often with this that it is something within us we do not know what which we are to Obey in all that it Suggests to us and we trouble our selves no further about it By which means it frequently comes to pass that though we have espoused very dangerous Errors or happen to be ingaged in very Sinful Practices yet believing and Acting as we say according to our Conscience we do not only think our selves perfectly Right and Safe while we continue in this State but are Effectually Armed against all sorts of Arguments and Endeavours that can be used for the bringing us to a better Mind This is too Visible in many Cases but in none more than in the Case of those that at this Day Separate from the Communion of the Church as it is Established among us Though the Laws of the Land both Ecclesiastical and Civil do oblige them to joyn in our Communion though many Arguments are offer'd to convince them not only that they Lawfully may but that they are bound to do it though they themselves are sensible that many-fold and grievous mischiefs and dangers do ensue from this breach of Communion and these unnatural Divisions both to the Christian Religion in General and to our Reformed Religion in particular yet if to all these things a Man can reply that he is Satisfied in his Conscience that he doth well in refusing his Obedience to the Laws or that he is not satisfied in his Conscience that he ought to joyn with us upon such Terms as are required this single pretence shall be often thought a sufficient Answer both to Laws and Arguments A strange thing this is that Conscience which among other ends was given to Mankind for a Preservative and Security of the Publick Peace for the more Effectually Obliging Men to Unity and Obedience to Laws yet should often be a means of setting them at distance and prove a Shelter for Disobedience and Disorder That God should Command us to Obey our Governours in all Lawful things for Conscience sake and yet that we should Disobey them in Lawful things for Conscience sake too It is the Design of this Discourse to examine what there is in this Plea that is so often made by our Dissenters for their not complying with the Laws viz. That it is against their Conscience so to do and to shew in what Cases this Plea is justly made and in what Cases not and where it is Justly made how far it will Justify any Mans Separation and how far it will not And all this in order to the possessing those who are concerned with a Sense of the great Necessity that lyes upon them of using their most serious endeavours to inform their Conscience aright in these matters before they presume to think they can Separate from us with a good Conscience which is all we desire of them for it is not our business to perswade any Man to conform against his Conscience but to convince every Man how Dangerous it may be to follow a misinformed Conscience But before I enter upon this disquisition it will be necessary in the first Place to prepare my way by laying down the Grounds and Principles I mean to proceed upon And here that I may take in all things that are needful to be known before-hand about this matter I shall treat distinctly of these Five Heads 1 Of the Nature of Conscience 2 Of the Rule of Conscience And under that 3 Of the Power of Humane Laws to Oblige the Conscience 4 And particularly in the instance of Church Communion 5 Of the Authority of Conscience or how far a Man is Obliged to be guided by his Conscience in his Actions I. And first as for the Nature of Conscience the truest way to find out that will be not so much to enquire into the Signification of the word Conscience or the several Scholastical Definitions of it as to consider what every Man doth really mean by that word when he has occasion to make use of it for if it do appear that all Men do agree in their Notions and Sense about this matter That without doubt which they all thus agree in is the true Notion and Sense of Conscience Now as to this we may observe in the first Place that a Man never speaks of his Conscience but with respect to his own Actions or to something that hath the Nature of an Action which is done or omitted by him or is to be done or omitted Matters of meer Knowledg and Speculation we do not concern our Conscience with as neither with those things in which we are purely Passive as neither with Actions if they be not our own We do not for instance make it a Point of Conscience one way or other whether a thing be true or false or whether this or the other Accident that befals us be prosperous or unfortunate or whether another Man hath done good or bad Actions in which we are no way concerned These kind of things may indeed prove matters of great Satisfaction or Disquiet of Joy or Grief to us But we do not take our Conscience to be affected with them That word never comes in but with respect to something willingly done or left undone by us or which we may do or may forbear Secondly we may observe that in Common Speech we do not neither use this word Conscience about our Actions but only so far as those Actions fall under a Moral consideration that is as they have the Nature of Duties or Sins or as they are Lawful or Vnlawful Always when we speak of Conscience in our Actions we have respect to some Law or Rule by which those Actions are to be directed and govern'd and by their agreeableness or disagreeableness with which they become morally Good or Evil. Thirdly this being so the only thing remaining to be enquired into for the finding out what Conscience is is what can be reasonably thought to be our Sense and meaning when we use the word Conscience with such Application to our Actions as we have now said Now for that I desire it may be considered that when we talk of our Actions as we concern our Conscience in them they can but fall under these two Heads of Distinction that is to say in the first
place we either consider our Actions as already done or omitted or we consider them as yet not done but as we are deliberating about them And then Secondly whether we consider them as done or not done as past or future yet we Rank them under one of these three Notions We either look upon them as Commanded by God and so to be Duties or as forbidden by God and so to be Sins or as neither Commanded nor forbidden and so to be indifferent Actions With these last Actions indeed Conscience is not properly or directly concerned but only by accident to wit as those indifferent Actions do approach to the Nature of Duties or Sins Our Actions I say do not touch our Conscience but as they fall under some of these Heads Now in all these Respects we have indeed different ways of bringing in Conscience but yet as it will appear we mean the same thing by it in them all First of all when we are considering an Action as yet not done if we look upon it as Commanded by God we say we are bound in Conscience to do it if we look upon it as a Sinful Action we say it is against our Conscience to do it if we look upon it as an indifferent thing we say we may do it or not do it with a Safe Conscience Now I pray what do we mean by these expressions I desire that every one would consult his own Mind and deny if he can that this is the Sense of his words If he saith he is bound in Conscience to do this or the other thing whether he doth not mean this that he verily thinks it is his Duty to do that Action If he saith that it is against his Conscience to do such an Action whether he means any more than this that he is perswaded in his Judgment that to do such an Action is an Offence against God If he saith that he can do it with a Safe Conscience whether he hath any other meaning than this that to the best of his Knowledg and Judgment the Action may be done without Transgressing any Law of God This is now undeniably the Sense that every Man in the World hath when he makes mention of Conscience as to Actions that are not yet done but only proposed to his Consideration So that taking Conscience as it respects our Actions to be done or omitted and as it is to Govern and Conduct them in which Sense we call Conscience a Guide or a Monitor and sometimes though very improperly a Rule of our Actions it can be nothing else in the Sense of all Men that use that word but a Mans Judgment concerning the goodness or badness the Lawfulness or Unlawfulness of Actions in order to the Conduct of his own Life But Secondly if we speak of our Actions that are done and past and consider Conscience with Reference to them here indeed we do a little vary the Expression about Conscience but the Notion of it is the same we have now given As for instance when we talk of Peace of Conscience or Trouble of Conscience with Reference to some Action we have done or omitted when we say My Conscience bears me Witness that I have Acted rightly and honestly in this Affair or my Conscience acquits me from blame as to this or the other Action or I am troubled in Conscience for doing what I have done If we turn these Phrases into other words we shall find that there is nothing more at the bottom of them than this that reflecting upon our own Actions we find that in this or the other instance we have either Acted or omitted as we are convinced in our Judgment we ought to do and the remembrance of this is some Pleasure and Satisfaction to us or we have done or forborn something contrary to what we take to be our Duty and the remembrance of this affects us with grief and trouble But still in both these instances of Expression that which we mean by Conscience is the same thing as in the former Cases viz. It is our Iudgment and Perswasion concerning what we ought to do or ought not to do or Lawfully may do only here we add to it this Consideration that the Action which we are perswaded to be good or bad or indifferent is now done or omitted by us and we do remember it In the Former Case Conscience was considered as the Guide of our Actions In the latter Case it is considered as the Witness of our Actions But in both Cases Conscience is the Judge and consequently in both Cases the Notion of it is the same only with this difference that in the former it was a Mans mind making a Judgment what he ought to do or not to do in the latter it is a Mans mind reflecting upon what he hath done or not done and Judging whether he be Innocent or Culpable in the matter he reflects upon I do not know how to give a clearer account of the Nature of Conscience in general than this I have now given This I believe is the Natural Notion that all Men have of it and there is no Expression in Scripture about it but what doth confirm this Notion If indeed we put Epithites to Conscience and talk of a Good Conscience or an Evil Conscience A Tender Conscience or a Seared Conscience or the like Then it includes more both in Scripture and in Common Language than I have now mentioned But to give an account of those things I am not now concerned as being without the Limits of our present enquiry II. And now we are sufficiently prepared for our Second general Point which is touching the Rule of Conscience if indeed after what we have already said it be not superfluous to insist upon that It appears plainly by what I have represented that Conscience must always have a Rule which it is to follow and by which it is to be Govern'd For since Conscience is nothing else but a Mans Iudgment concerning Actions as good or bad or Indifferent it is certain that a Man must have some measures to proceed by in order to the framing such a Judgment about Actions that is to say there must be something distinct from the Man himself that makes Actions to be good or bad or indifferent and from which by applying particular Actions to it or comparing them with it a Man may be able to Judge whether they be of the one sort or the other Now this whatever it be is that which we call the Rule of Conscience and so much it is its Rule that Conscience can be no farther a safe guide than as it follows that Rule If now it be asked what this Rule of Conscience is or what that is which makes a difference between Actions as to the Moral goodness or badness of them the Answer to it is Obvious to every Body That it can be nothing else but the Law of God For nothing can be a Duty but what
never so slight nay though they should prove really inconvenient either to our selves or the Publick Yet if they stand upon them if they persist in requiring our Obedience to them we must yield we must Obey always supposing they be not against Gods Laws For we are at no hand either to affront their Authority our selves or to encourage others by our Example to do it For to do either of these things is a greater Evil to the Publâ—ck than our Obedience to an inconvenient Law can easily be IV. And now it is time for us to apply what hath been said in General concerning the Rule of Conscience and the Obligation of Humane Laws to the particular Matter here before us that is the business of Church Communion The Obligation of Conscience to which in such manner as the Laws have appointed is the Fourth general Head we are to consider This point of the Obligation to Communion with the Church as by Law Established hath been largely handled by several Learned Men of our Church and particularly it is the Argument of one of those Discourses which have lately been writ for the sake of our Dissenters Thither therefore I refer the Reader for full Satisfaction about this Matter being only just to touch upon it here as one of the Principles we take for granted and shall proceed upon in the following Discourse And here the Proposition we lay down is this That it is every Mans Duty and consequently every Man is bound in Conscience to joyn in Communion with that Church which is Established by Law in the place where he lives so long as that Church is a true sound part of the Catholick Church and there is nothing imposed or required as a Condition of Communicating with it that is Repugnâ—nt to the Laws of God or the Appointments of Iesus Christ. This Proposition is Evident not only because it Necessarily follows from the foregoing Principle which was that every Man is bound in Conscience to Obey the Laws of Men that are not contrary to the Laws of God and therefore consequently a Man is bound to Obey in Ecclesiastical matters as well as Civil unless it can be shew'd that Christ hath forbid all Humane Authority whether Ecclesiastical or Civil to make any Laws or Orders about Religion which I believe never was or can be shew'd But it is Evident upon another Account which I desire may be considered We are all really bound by the Laws of Iesus Christ and the Nature of his Religion to preserve as much as in us lyes the Vnity of the Church Which Vnity doth consist not only in professing the same Faith but joyning together with our Brethren under Common Governours in the same Religious Communion of Worship and Sacraments And therefore whoever breaks this Vnity of the Church by withdrawing his Obedience from those Church Governours which God hath set over him in the place where he Lives and Separating from the Established Religious Assemblies of Christians under those Governours doth really transgress the Laws of Iesus Christ and is Guilty of that Sin of Schism which is so very much cautioned against and so highly Condemned in the Scriptures of the New Testament Unless in the mean time it doth appear to the Man who thus withdraws and Separates that there is something required of him in those Assemblies and by those Governours and that as a Term and Condition of holding Communion with them which he cannot Submit to without Sin And this Point I do heartily wish was well considered by our dissenting Brethren They do seem often to look upon this business of coming to Church and joyning with us in Prayers and Sacraments no otherwise to bind their Conscience than other purely Humane Laws They think they owe no Obedience to the Laws in these matters different from that which they yield to any common Act of Parliament And therefore no wonder they often make so slight a business of them But this is a great mistake there is much more in these things than this comes to The withdrawing our Communion from the Church carrys a far greater guilt in it than the Violating any Law that is purely Humane For though we do readily grant that all the Circumstances of Publick Worship enjoyned in the Church as for Instance the Times the Gestures the Forms of Prayer the Methods of Reading the Scripture and Administring the Sacraments as also the Habits of the Ministers that are to Officiate be all of Humane Institution and may be altered and varyed at the discretion of our Governours Yet the Publick Worship it self under Publick Lawful Governours is of Divine Appointment and no Man can Renounce it without Sinning against Iesus Christ as well as Offending against the Ecclesiastical Laws A Humane Law grounded upon a Divine or to speak more properly a Divine Law modify'd or Clothed with several Circumstances of Mans Appointment doth Create another kind of Obligation upon every Subject than a Law that is purely Humane that is to say a Law the matter of which is neither Good nor Evil in it self but perfectly indifferent In the former Case we must yield Obedience to the Law as to the Law of God however it comes Clothed with Circumstances of Mans Appointment In the other Case we only yield Obedience as to the Command of Man and for no other reason than that God in general hath Obliged us to Obey our Superiors To make this a little plainer let us for Instance take the business of Paying Tribute and Custom in this Nation in which Case there is a Complication of a Divine Law with a Humane as it is in the Case we are now upon That every Subject should Pay Tribute to whom Tribute is due Custom to whom Custom is due is a Law of God as being a branch both of Natural and Christian Justice But out of what goods we should Pay Tribute or Custom or what Proportion of those Goods should be Paid this is not defined either by the Law of Nature or the Law of the Gospel but is left to the Determination of the Municipal Laws of every Kingdom But now because Humane Authority doth interpose in this Affair and settles what every Man is to Pay to the King and out of what Commodities doth it therefore follow that if a Man can by Fraud or Concealment detain the Kings Right from him that he incurs no other guilt for this but only the Transgressing of an Act of Parliament and the being Obnoxious to the Penalties in Case he be detected No certainly for all that the Customs in that manner and form be settled upon the King by Humane Law only yet the matter of that Law being a point of Natural Justice between Man and Man the Man that is thus Guilty ought to look upon himself as an Offender against the Divine Law as an unjust Person before God And his willingness to Submit to the Forfeiture of his Goods will not render him less unjust or more
of another Opinion and when also the Publick Law which has much more Authority than any private Opinion hath determined what I am to do in the Case So that it is great weakness sillyness not Conscience that prevails with these Men I am speaking of to live in disobedience to the Laws If indeed they be really perswaded in their own Minds that our way of Worshipping God is in any part or instance of it Unlawful or Forbidden let that Perswasion be upon what grounds it will then they may truly say it is against their Conscience to joyn with us But if they be not convinced of this I do not see how the Example or the advice of their Friends and Acquaintance can in the least give them a Title to Plead Conscience for their refusing our Communion Fifthly those that withdraw from the Church upon this Account that our Governours in their Laws and Prescriptions about Gods Worship have not rightly used the Power which they are intrusted with but have exceeded their bounds have made perhaps too great Encroachments upon Christian Liberty or laid more stress than was meet upon Indifferent things These likewise are excluded by the former Rule from Pleading Conscience for their Separation For admit the Law-givers have been to blame in the Exercise of their Power in these matters which yet is sooner said then proved and have really done more then they can answer to God for yet what is this to them The Conscience of the Governours is indeed deeply concerned about these things and they must give an Account to God for the abuse of their Authority if there be any But how this doth concern the Conscience of the Subject is not easily understood So long as what is Commanded or Enjoyned doth not appear to interfere with any Law of God But having said this I fear there is too much reason to add that those who so much stand up for Christian Liberty and would be thought the great Patrons of it do by their endless scruples about Indifferent things and refusing to Obey Authority in such matters in all appearance take the most Effectuall Course to destroy all Christian Liberty in the true Notion of it and to bring in a Religion that shall consist of Touch not Tast not Handle not and such other Uncommanded things Sixthly and lastly to name no more instances All those that can Communicate Occasionally with us in our Prayers and Sacraments As for instance those that when they have a turn to be served when there is an Office or some such thing in the Case can come to Church and receive the Communion but at other times they do not afford us their Presence These are also excluded from pretending to Conscience for their not constantly joyning in Communion with us For if indeed they did believe it was a Sin in them to joyn with us in our Prayers and Sacraments with what Conscience dare they do it at all They ought not for any worldly good to venture upon such an Action as they do believe to be forbidden by Gods Laws But if they do not believe that to joyn in our Communion is a Sinful thing as I dare say none of these Persons do then I will be bold to make the Inference that it cannot be more against their Conscience to do it Thrice than to do it Once and do it constantly than to do it Thrice But let us leave the false Pretenders to Conscience and come to the Case of those who can justly Plead Conscience for their Separation or that can truly say it is against their Conscience to joyn in our Communion Of this sort are all such and none but such as do really believe that our Communion is unlawful or that they cannot Communicate with us without Sin as I have before proved As for those that only doubt of the Lawfulness of our Communion but are not perswaded that it is unlawful I do not here consider them because they cannot say that it is against their Conscience to Communicate with us any more than they can say that they are bound in Conscience to Communicate with us For they are uncertain as to both these things and are not determined either way But however because these men may justly Plead Conscience upon this Account that they think it is a Sin to joyn with us so long as they doubt of the Lawfulness of our Communion I shall consider their Case afterwards in a particular Discourse upon that Argument Those that I am now concerned with are such as do believe or are perswaded that there is some thing in our Worship which they cannot comply with without Sinning against God And my business is to Examine whether such a Belief or Perswasion of the Vnlawfulness of our Communion will justifie any Mans Separation from us Or how far it will do it And what is to be done by such Persons in order either to their Communicating or not Communicating with us with a safe Conscience This is our second Point and I apply my self to it There are a great many among us that would with all their Hearts as they say Obey the Laws of the Church and joyn in our Worship and Sacraments but they are really perswaded that they cannot do it without Sin For there are some things required of them as Conditions of Communicating with us which are Forbidden by the Laws of God As for Instance it is against the Commands of Christ to appoint or to use any thing in the Worship of God which God himself hath not appointed For this is to add to the word of God and to Teach for Doctrines the Commandments and Traditions of Men. It is against the Commands of Iesus Christ to Stint the Spirit in Prayer which all those that use a Form of Prayer must necessarily do It is against the Commands of Iesus Christ to use any Significant Ceremony in Religion As for Instance the Cross in Baptism for that is to make new Sacraments It is against the Commands of Iesus Christ to kneel at the Lords Supper for that is directly to contradict our Saviours Example in his Institution of that Sacrament and Savours besides of Popish Idolatry Since therefore there are these Sinful things in our Worship and those too imposed as Terms of Communion how can we blame them if they withdraw themselves from us Would we have them joyn with us in these Practices which they verily believe to be Sins Where then was their Conscience They might perhaps by this means shew how much they were the Servants of Men But what would become of their Fidelity to Iesus Christ. What now shall we say to this They themselves are so well satisfi'd with their own doings in these matters that they do not think they are in the least to be blamed for refusing us their Communion so long as things stand thus with them They are sure they herein follow their own Conscience and therefore they cannot doubt but they
he hath been taught to believe that they are necessary Duties and he cannot be a good Catholick unless he thus Worship Images and Saints and the Bread of the Host. Well now the point is Whether such a Man believing as he doth be upon that Account acquitted from the Sin of Idolatry We all grant that if he had such clear Information about these things as we Protestants have he would certainly be an Idolater if he should contitinue in these Practices But whether his belief and Opinion and perswasion concerning these things do not excuse him and make that cease to be Idolatry that would otherwise be so This I say is the question But yet none of us make any great question of it For we do charge the Papists indiscriminately with Idolatry in their Worship notwithstanding their disclaiming it notwithstanding their Profession to Worship God no otherwise than according to his own Will notwithstanding they do really take themselves Obliged in Conscience to give Divine Worship to the Consecrated Elements and those other Objects And we charge them rightly in this For if it be really Idolatry by Gods word to do these things then it will be Idolatry in any Man to do them let his Opinion about them be what it Will. A Mans Ignorance or mistake or false Opinion doth not alter the nature of things it can neither make that cease to be a Duty which God hath Commanded nor that cease to be a Sin which God hath Forbidden All that it will do is that according to the Nature and Circumstances of it it may more or less Extenuate the Transgression that is committed upon the Account thereof And the Case is just the same in the matter before us For any Man to withdraw his Communion from that Church with which he ought and with which he may Lawfully Communicate That is as properly the Sin of Schism as it is the Sin of Idolatry to give Divine Worship to that which is not God For any Man therefore to break the Unity of the Church though it be upon this very Account that he doth believe it is his Duty so to do or that he cannot Communicate with that Church without Sin Yet if this perswasion of his be false and Erroneous he is no less a Schismatick for all this than the other Man is an Idolater that thinks it his Duty to adore Images and those other undue Objects of Divine Worship among the Romanists It is true the Mans Ignorance or Misperswasion will according to the greater or less Culpability of it more or less excuse the Mans Person before God as it doth in the other Case But it cannot in the least make that which God hath made to be Schism to be no Schism no more than in the other Case it makes that to be no Idolatry which Gods word hath declared to be Idolatry Well now admitting all this here comes the pinch of the thing It will be said What would you have a Man do in this Case He cannot conform with a safe Conscience and yet he is a Transgressor if he do not If he comply against his Conscience you grant he is guilty of Sin in so doing If he doth not Comply then you say he is a Schismatick and so is a Sinner upon that Account Why to this I say that both these things are often true and here is that Dilemma which Men by Suffering their minds to be abused with Evil Principles and Perswasions do frequently run themselves into They are reduced to that Extremity that they can neither Act nor forbear Acting They can neither Obey nor Disobey without Sin But what is to be done in this Case I know nothing but this That all Imaginable Care is to be taken that the Error and false Principles which misled the Man be deposed and that his Judgment be better informed and then he may both do his Duty which Gods Law requireth of him and avoid Sinning against his Conscience But how is this to be done Why no other way but by using Conscientiously all those means which common Prudence will Recommend to a Man for the gaining Instruction and Information to himself about any point that he desires throughly to understand That is to say Freeing his Mind from all Pride and Passion and Interest and all other carnal Prepossessions and applying himself seriously and impartially to the getting right Notions and Sentiments about his Duty in these matters Considering without prejudice what can be said on both sides Calling in the best assistance of the ablest and wisest Men that he can come by And above all things seriously endeavouring to understand the Nature and Spirit of the Christian Religion and to practice all that he is undoubtedly convinced to be his Duty And for the matters in question most earnestly imploring the Assistance of Gods Spirit to guide and direct him Well but supposing a Man has endeavoured to inform his Judgment as well as he can and hath used all those Prudent means that were in his Power to satisfie himself of the Lawfulness of our Communion But yet after all he is of the same perswasion that he was viz. That he cannot joyn in our Worship without Sin what will we say to such a Man as this Will we still say that this Man must either Conform though against his Conscience or he is a Schismatick before God This is the great difficulty and I have two things to say to it In the first place we do heartily wish that this was the Case of all or of the most of our Dissenters viz. that they had done what they can to satisfie themselves about our Communion For if it was I do verily perswade my self that there would presently be an end of all those much to be lamented Schisms and Divisions which do now give so much Scandal to all good Men and threaten the Ruin of our Reformed Religion And this poor Church of England which hath so long Laboured and Groaned under the furious Attacques that have been made upon her by Enemies without and Enemies within her own Bowels would in a little time be perfectly set free from all apprehension of Danger at the least from the one sort of her Adversaries If all our Brethren of the Separation would most seriously follow after the things that make for Peace and walk by the same Rule as far as they were able and in things where they were otherwise minded would Religiously apply themselves to God for direction and to the use of Prudent means for Satisfaction I doubt not but the Face of things would presently be changed among us and we should hear no more of any Division or Schism in our Nation that was either dangerous to the Church or to the Salvation of the Men that were concerned in it But alas we fear we have too great reason to say that the generality of our Dissenting Brethren even those of them that Plead Conscience for their Separation have not done
Place those who separate from the Church through misperswasions and mistakes of Judgment which they groundlessly and foolishly took up and might have avoided and would yet still certainly correct in themselves if they were but so Careful and Conscientious about their Duty as they ought to be These Men have indeed far more to say for themselves than the former but yet they are very blameable and are bound as they Love their Souls to take more Care of Informing their Conscience aright that so they may leave that Sin they are engaged in But Thirdly those that separate from the Church of God because they know no better nor never had means to know better Or those that have sincerely endeavoured to understand their Duty as much as could be expected from one in their Circumstances yet through weakness of understanding or want of Opportunity light into wrong Paths In a word those that are unhappily engaged in a Schism but God Almighty who searcheth the Hearts knoweth that it is not through the Fault of their Wills but the misfortune of their Circumstances I say if there be any Man among us that is in this Condition though he be a Schismatick Materially yet he is Innocently at least Pittiably so And if he be as free from blame in the other parts of his Life be may be a good Christian for all that And God Almighty we hope who Judgeth of Men by their inward Sincerity and not by their outward Circumstances will impute that Schism which in others perhaps is a wilful Crime to this Man no otherwise then as a pure Sin of Ignorance which shall not upon a general Repentance for all Sins known and unknown be accounted for at the last day Especially if this Innocently mistaken Man we speak of do to the other Regularities of his Life add a diligent Care in these four following Points First that he be not Obstinate and Pertinacious in his way but that he keep his mind readily prepared and disposed to receive any Conviction which God by any Means or Instruments shall offer to him Secondly That he Separate no farther from the Church of which he ought to be a Member than he needs must but do chearfully comply with the Publick Laws and Establishments in all those Instances where he is Satisfied he may do it with a safe Conscience Thirdly that where he cannot give Active Obedience to the Laws he do in those Instances Patiently and Christianly submit to the Penalties which those Laws inflict Neither exclaiming against his Governours or the Magistrates as Persecutors for enacting or Executing those Laws Nor using any undue Illegal means to get himself more ease and Liberty But in all things behaving himself as a quiet and peaceable Subject to the Government he lives under And Fourthly and lastly that he shew himself a good Neighbour as well as a good Subject in avoiding all peevish and bitter Censures of those that differ in Opinion and perswasion from him and Exercising Humanity and Friendliness and Charity to all his Fellow Christians Whosoever I say of our Brethren of the Separation make good these Points That is to say are in the first place very sincere in their endeavours to inform their Conscience aright in the matter of our Communion And in the next place when they cannot Satisfie their Conscience about our way do yet in their Dissent from us Observe the four Particulars I have now named I should be loth for my part to Censure them either as ill Men or ill Subjects or ill Christians But then all that I have said in this matter doth no more justifie the Sin of Schism or Extenuate the hainousness of it in its own Nature Than it would serve to justifie or Extenuate the Sin of Idolatry if all that I have now said was applied to the Case of an Ignorant well meaning devout Papist For I do verily believe that what I have now represented by way of Apology for an innocent mistaken Separatist will hold true mutatis mutandis in the Case of a deluded Romanist who is invincibly and without any fault of his intangled in the Practice of their Idolatries But I-believe for all that the Sin of Idolatry is in it self a most grievous Sin and so I believe is the Sin of Schism and therefore notwithstanding all that may be said concerning the Innocence or Excuseableness 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 come to a conclusion that which I would most seriously press from what hath been said is this It appears from the foregoing Discourse how absolutely necessary it is that every Man should endeavour to inform his Judgment aright in the matters that offend his Conscience before he withdraw his Obedience from his Lawful Governours and his Communion from those that Worship God in Publick under them It appears likewise that it is not enough to justifie a Mans Separation that this or the other thing in our Worship is really against his Conscience for he may be a great Sinner notwithstanding that for leaving our Assemblies if it should prove at last that he is mistaken in his Notions What therefore should every Dissenter among us do that hath any regard to his Duty and would preserve a good Conscience I say what is there that more concerns him to do than presently to set about the true informing of his Judgment in the points where he is now dissatisfi'd for Fear he be found to live in a grievous Sin all the time he Separates from us And therefore let no Man that Lives out of our Communion satisfie himself with such frivolous pretences as these That as for all the Substantials of Religion the matters of Faith and Good Life they do agree with us and that as for the other matters which concern Ceremonies and Discipline these are Nice Controverted Points Points disputed pro and contra amongst the Divines And therefore why should they trouble their Heads about them nay perhaps if they should they have neither Abilities nor Opportunities to understand them It must be confessed that something of this is true But yet it is nothing to their purpose It is very well that we all agree in the Rule of Faith and Manners and it would be happy if all the Christian World did so too But still Schism is a dreadful Sin And a Man may as certainly without Repentance be damned for that as for being an Heretick in his Opinion or a Drunkard for instance in his Manners Sure I am the Ancient Christian Fathers thought so It is true likewise that the business of Church Government and Discipline and other Points of Ecclesiastical Conformity is a matter of Dispute and Controversy among us But who is it that made it so The Church of England without doubt would have been very well pleased if there had been no dust raised no dispute or contentions moved in these matters but that every Member would have done his Duty peaceably and quietly in his Station Or that if any Controversy had arose it should have been debated among Learned Men and never have proceeded to Separation from the Communion We do not pretend to lay any stress upon Skill and Knowledg about these matters in Order to a Mans Salvation We believe and teach that a Man may be a very good Christian and go to Heaven that never understood how to justifie the Cross in Baptism or to defend the Common Prayer Book against all the Exceptions that are made against it All that we say is that if any Man will scruple and except against the use of these things it lyes upon him nay he is bound as he would keep a good Conscience to use the best means he possibly can to get Satisfaction about them Or if he do not at his own Peril be it nay even at the Peril of his Salvation if he breaks the Churches Peace and Communion upon that Account And as for those that pretend that these are Subtil Points and above their Reach and Capacity and they have not understanding and Wit enough to dive into them Why in Gods Name who desires them We say that they might Innocently enough and with a good Conscience comply with their Governours in these Points as they do in a hundred others without ever diving into them But since it seems they have Wit and Vnderstanding enough to cavil and find fault with these things and upon that Account to deny their Obedience to those Lawful Powers which God hath set over them One would think they should at the same time have so much Honesty as seriously to endeavour to give themselves Satisfaction as to those things they find fault with And this is all we desire of them And it is for their own sakes too as well as ours that we desire it For otherwise they will never be able to answer either to God or Man for the horrible Inconveniences and mischiefs that arise to the Church of Christ by the Division and Separation which they are engaged in To conclude if in any Instance that Famous Precept of the Apostle of proving all things and holding fast that which is good do Oblige Christians it doth especially in this If ever it be a Mans Duty to satisfie himself about the goodness and Lawfulness of a thing that he is apt to doubt of it is certainly in the Case where his Superiours have laid their Commands upon him For there he cannot disobey without Sin unless he can assure himself that he hath done all that he can to reconcile their Commands with his Duty to God but upon the best means he hath used he finds them irreconcileable For a Man to disobey till he has done this is an unwarrantable thing and in the Case that I now speak of it is no less than the Sin of Formal Criminal Schism FINIS