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
p. 1. c. p. 57. prove it and so do's the (c) Jerubbaal or the Pleader impleaded p. 18. 27. Authour of Jerubbaal and if I shou'd proceed to particulars I might fill a Volume with (d) Concerning her Doctrin See the Opinion of the Presbyt in Corbet's Discourse §. 21. p. 43. Baxter's 5 Disp Pref p. 6. of the Independents in the Peace Offering p. 12. See also Baxter's Def. of his Cure part 1. p. 64. part 2. p. 3. Wadsworth's Separ yet no Schism p. 60 62. Throughton's Apology c. 3. p. 106. and of the Brownists in their Apol. p. 7. Anno 1604. See also Bayly's Dissuasive c. 2. p. 20 33. Stillingfleet's Unreasonableness of Separ part 1. §. 9. p. 31. for Opinions concerning her Worship See Hildersham's Lect. 26. on Joh. p. 121. Contin of Morn Exercise Serm. 4. p. 91. Throughton's Apology p. 104. Peace Offering p. 17. for Opinions concerning the Truth sufficiency and ability of her Ministry See Bradshaw's Unreasonableness of Separ p. 16 27 37. Grave and Mod. Confut. p. 28. Apologet. Narrat p. 6. Cotton's Infant Baptism p. 181. for the defence of the Ordination of our Ministry See Jus Divi. Minist Evangel part 2. p. 12 16 17 25 c. Jus Div. regim Eccles p. 264 c. Cawdry's Independency a great Schism p. 116. and his defence of it p. 35 37. Testimonies 'T is true they own her to be a true Church upon different Grounds because some of the Dissenting Writers are for a National and others for a Congregational Church but they (e) Jus div Min. Evangel p. 12 c. Brinsly's Church-Remedy p. 41 42. Cawdry's Independency a great Schism p. 60 89 132 172. Tombes's Theodulia §. 15 16. pref c. 9. §. 3. Crofton's Reformation not Separation p. 10. and Bethshemesh Clouded p. 101 c. Church Refor p. 42. Corbet's account of the Principles c p. 26. Throughton's Apology p. 103. Baxter's defence of his Cure part 2. p. 178. Cotton's way clear'd p. 8. his Letter p. 3. Hooker's Survey pref part 1. p. 47. Goodwin on the Ephes p. 447 448 449. all agree in this that the Church of England is a true Church tho' they say she is a corrupted one Nay our (f) Grave and Mod. Confut. p. 6. Goodwin's Sion Coll. visited Bradshaw's Unreasonableness of the Separation p. 97. Brethren do not only grant her to be a true Church but also declare her to be one of the most valuable if not the very best in the world But I shall say no more of this matter only I refer the Reader to Mr. Baxter's Cure of Ch. divis dir 56. p. 263. That the Establish'd Church is also a sound as well as a true part of the Catholic Church might easily appear by an examination of it but I shall not enter upon so large a work because it is not necessary for I conceive that our Dissenters will be not only willing but forward to acknowledge it when I shall have answer'd those objections which they are pleas'd to make against our Communion and shewn that those Pleas which they raise from them are by no means sufficient to make Separation lawful I proceed therefore to the several Pleas and design to examine them in their natural order CHAP. II. The use of indifferent things in the Worship of God no objection against our Communion THE First Objection against our Communion is drawn from the use of indifferent things Our Adversaries say that indifferent things may not lawfully be us'd in the worship of God and that our Communion is therefore unlawful because we require men to use such indifferent things Now that this objection may be fully answer'd I shall do four things viz. First I shall shew what is meant by indifferent things Secondly I shall shew that indifferent things may be lawfully us'd in divine Worship Thirdly I shall consider how we may know what things are indifferent in the worship of God Fourthly I shall shew how we are to determine our selves in the use of indifferent things with respect to the worship of God I. Then I shall shew what is meant by indifferent things All actions are either duties or sins or indifferent that is such as are neither duties nor sins Duties or sins are so either in their own nature or by Divine Law That which is commanded is a duty that which is forbidden is a sin but that which is neither commanded nor forbidden is indifferent because 't is neither duty nor sin and we may either chuse or refuse it without sin For where no law is there is no transgression Rom. 4.15 Duty is duty because 't is commanded and sin is sin because 't is forbidden and indifferent is indifferent because 't is neither commanded nor forbidden So that we may as well know by the silence of the Law what is indifferent as we may know by its Authority what is a duty or a sin For where there is no Law for or against the matter is indifferent As for instance suppose there should be a dispute concerning daies set apart for the service of God how must this be determin'd but by the Law of Nature or Revelation Now if neither the Law of Nature nor the Law of Revelation say any thing of the observation of such daies then we are at liberty to observe or not to observe them II. Indifferent things may be us'd in the Divine worship as appears 1. From the consideration of the Gospel-rules of worship which except what relate to the two Sacraments are taken from the Nature of the thing and were the same in all Ages viz. such as respect Order Decency and Edification 1 Cor. 14.26 40. So that we are no otherwise bound than all the world ever was and therefore since others have always determin'd the outward circumstances of worship we have also the same liberty The Rules themselves are general and the Apostles rarely descend to particulars but whenever they do they shew how far Custom Charity and the reason of the thing ought to govern us as in the case of a Man's being uncover'd in God's worship 1 Cor. 11.4 7. for they thought it impossible or not worth their while to tie all Nations to the same Modes since God may be honour'd by one as well as the other If it be said that when things are determin'd in general the particulars are therein Virtually determin'd and so are not indifferent I answer that then nothing is indifferent since there are general rules about every thing As for example all Meats are now lawful to Christians but yet there are general rules by which we are determin'd in the use of them such as our own constitution c. but those rules do not make the Meats to be other than indifferent So there are general rules for God's worship but yet the particulars are indifferent and prudence is to regulate them The general rules of Order Decency and Edification depend upon variable
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
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
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
with Heathens in their filthy Mysteries nor to partake with any sort of wicked Men in any Action that 's Immoral do's it therefore follow that they must not do their Duty because sometimes it cannot be done but in their Company Must they abstain from the public Worship of God and the Lord's Table to which they are commanded because Evil Men who till they repent have nothing to do there rudely intrude themselves As for St. John's words Revel 18.4 Come out of her my People that ye be not partakers of her sins and that ye receive not of her plagues they are a command to all Christians to forsake the Communion of Idolaters and according to most Interpreters those in particular of the Church of Rome but the Text do's not afford the Dissenters the least Plea to separate from us who are Reform'd from Popery and retain nothing of it but what it retains of the Gospel and the Primitive Church I have nothing now to add but that the eminent Dissenters do utterly (g) See Vines on the Sacrament p. 235 242. Platform c. 14. §. 8. Brinsly's Arraignm p. 37 38. Jenkin on Jude v. 19. Baily's Disswasive p. 22. Sacriâ— desert p. 97. Cawdrey's Reformation promoted p. 131. Manton on Jude p. 496. Cotton's Holiness of Church-Members p. 2. Burroughs's Gospel-Worship Serm. 11. p. 242. disclaim this Plea of Mixt-Communion Mr. Vines saies it is Donastical and others as Mr. Brinsly and Mr. Jenkin that it 's the common Plea or Pretence which for the most part hath been taken up by all Schismatics in defence of their Separation from the Church and therefore that it is necessary the People should be untaught it as Mr. Baxter advises And as they do disclaim it so they declare that those who separate upon this account do it very unjustly that the Scandals of Professors are ground of mourning but not of Separation that there may be a sufficient cause to cast out obstinate sinners and yet not sufficient cause for one to leave the Church tho' such be not cast out that the suffering of profane and scandalous Livers to continue in the Church and partake in the Sacrament is doubtless a great sin yet the Godly are not presently to separate from it There is saies Mr. Burroughs an errour on both sides either those that think it concerns them not at all with whom they come to the Sacrament or those that if they do what they can to keep the Scandalous away and yet they shou'd be suffer'd to come think that they themselves may not come to partake of it This both the Presbyterians and Independents agree in and endeavour (h) See Vines on the Sacrament p. 31 32 44 242 246. Vindicat of Presb. Gov. p. 134. Brinsly's Arraignm p. 47. Firmin's Separ Exam. p. 40. Cawdrey's Church-Reâ—or p. 71. Tombes's Theod. p. 74. Hooker's Survey Pref. A 3. Platform c. 14. §. 8 9. Grave Confut. part 3. p. 53 55. Burroughs's Gospel-worsh Serm. 11. p. 236 237. Ball 's Tryal c. 10. p. 191 250 211. Jean's Discourse on the Lord's Supper Rutherford's Right of Presbyt Blake's Vindic. p. 235. Cotton's Inf. Bapt. p. 102. Cartwright on Proverb Edwards's Apol. Baxter's Christian Direct p. 707. Non-conformists no Schismaticks p. 16. Bains on the Ephes c. 1. v. 1. p. 5. to prove by several Arguments Nay they answer an Objection drawn from 1 Cor. 5.11 If any Man that is called a Brother be a Fornicator c. with such an one no not to eat and tell us First That if it be meant of excluding such an one from Church-Communion it must be done by the Church and not by a private Person But you are not commanded to separate from the Church if they exclude him not So Mr. Baxter c. Secondly That it concerns not Religious but Civil Communion and that not all Civil Society or Commerce but Familiar also For which they produce several Reasons 1. They argue from the Notion of eating Bread which is a Token of Love and Friendship in the phrase of Scripture not to partake of or to be shut from the Table is a sign of Familiarity broken off So Mr. Ball c. 2. The eating which is here forbidden is allow'd to be with the Heathen but it 's the civil eating which is only allow'd to be with an Heathen therefore it 's the civil eating which is forbidden to be with a Brother So Mr. Jenkin c. (i) See Baxter's Defence part 2. p. 27. Ball 's Tryal p. 200. Jenkin on Jude v. 19. Cawdrey's Church-Reformat p. 75 122 126. Brinsly's Arraignment p. 40 45 48. Tombes's Theodul p. 128 167 210. Grave Confut. part 1. p. 17 18. part 4. p. 57. Vines on the Sacrament p. 219 226 333 246. Cartwright's Def. of the Admon p. 98 99 106. Goodwin on the Ephes p. 487 488. Blake's Vindic. c. 31. p. 236 238. Gillisp Nihil respondet p. 33. Knutton's Queries Throughton's Apol. p. 65. Baxter's Cure Dir. 47. p. 231. Owen's Evangel Love c. 3. p. 77. Brian's Dwelling with God Sermon 6. p. 301. Firmin's Separat Exam. p. 28. Collins's Provocator Provocatus p. 144 151. England's Remembrancer Serm. 16. p. 454. And as for other Objections Mr. Baxter's answer is sufficient If you mark all the Texts in the Gospel you shall find that all the Separation which is commanded in such cases besides our Separation from the Infidel and Idolatrous World or Antichristian and Heretical Confederacies and No-Churches is but one of these two sorts 1. Either that the Church cast out the impenitent by the Power of the Keys or 2. That private Men avoid all private Familiarity with them but that the private Members shou'd separate from the Church because such Persons are not cast out of it shew me one Text to prove it if you can To conclude this objection of Mixt-Communion proves nothing but a supercilious Arrogance and a great want of Charity in those that make it What care they may take in their new way of Discipline I cannot tell but our Church has given the Minister a power of rejecting scandalous Sinners (k) See Rubr. after the Communion and this is as much as can be done for the close Hypocrite will escape the narrowest search Every Man is charg'd to examine himself and not another and 't wou'd be well if all wou'd do so For he that enquires seriously into his own sins will find great cause to be humble and penitent but he that is curious to pry into the miscarriages of others will be apt to be vain proud self-conceited and censorious which will make him as unfit for the Table of the Lord as any of those Faults which he so scornfully condemns in his Neighbours that he esteems himself and the Ordinances of God polluted by their Company CHAP. X. The Pretences of Purer Ordinances and Better Edification among the Dissenters Answer'd WELL but tho' our Communion be not sinful yet they can find Purer Ordinances and
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
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
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
lawful and since Conformity is injoin'd and since nothing is more plain from Scripture than that we must obey our Superiours in all lawful things therefore 't is evident that we must not omit the duty of Conforming for fear of giving Offence But 't is Objected that those Precepts which contain only rituals are to give place to those which concern the welfare of Mens Bodies and much more to those which concern the welfare of their Souls so that when both together cannot be observ'd we must break the former to observe the latter God will have mercy and not sacrifice Now if sacrifices prescrib'd by God himself must give place to Acts of Mercy much more must Human Inventions yeild to them To this I answer that the commands of our Superiours do not bind us either in a case of absolute necessity or when they plainly hinder any moral duty to God or our Neighbour but this is only when the necessity is urgent and extreme and the sin we must otherwise commit evident and certain and at last our obedience is dispensed withal only for that one time We may be absent from Church to save the life of our Neighbour or to quench the firing of his house but 't wou'd be a pitiful pretence for the constant neglect of our public Prayers because in the mean time our Neighbours house may be fired or his life invaded and so he may stand in need of our help Tho' this argument may serve to excuse the omission of something commanded by lawful Authority in extraordinary cases which very rarely happen yet to be sure it will not help those who live in open disobedience to the Laws only because they are loth to offend those who are not satisfy'd with what is appointed But say they Scandal is Spiritual Murther and if we must obey Authority tho' Scandal follow then when Authority commands we may murther the Soul of our Brother and destroy him by our meats for whom Christ dy'd But I answer that wearing a Surplice Kneeling at the Sacrament c. will not make Men forsake Christianity which I have prov'd is the only proper Scandalizing our Brother which St. Paul charges with the guilt of Soul-murther Nay this argument concludes as strongly against obedience to any other command of God if a Brother be offended at it as it do's against submission to Superiours in things lawful For 't is not only the Law of Man but the Law of God also that is broken by disobedience to Superiours We cannot be bound to transgress a plain Law of God for fear of some evil that may chance to happen to some others thro' their own fault because every one is bound to have a greater care of his own than of others Salvation and consequently to avoid sin in himself than to prevent it in his Brethren Nay as Bishop Sanderson saies To allow Men under pretence that some offence may be taken thereat to disobey Laws and Constitutions made by those that are in Authority over us is the next way to cut the Sinews of all Authority and to bring both Magistrates and Laws into contempt for what Law ever was made or can be made so just and reasonable but some Men or other either did or might take offence thereat If it be here asked whether any Human Authority can make that action cease to be Scandalous which if done without any such command had been Scandalous I answer that no Authority can secure that others shall not be offended by what I do out of obedience to it but then it frees me from blame by making that my duty which if I had otherwise done might have been uncharitable If it be said that avoiding of Scandal is a main duty of charity and that if Superiours may appoint how far I shall shew my charity towards my Brother's Soul then an earthly Court may cross the determinations of the Court of heaven I answer that here is no crossing the Determinations of God since it is his express Will that in all lawful things we shou'd obey our Governours and he who has made this our Duty will not lay to our charge the Mischiefs that may sometimes without our fault thro' the folly and peevishness of Men follow from it And certainly it is as equal and reasonable that our Superiours shou'd appoint how far we shall exercise our Charity towards our Brethren as it is that the mistake and prejudice of any private Christians shou'd set Bounds to their Power and Authority or that every ignorant and froward Brother shou'd determine how far we shall be obedient to those whom God has set over us But farther duties of justice are of stricter obligation than duties of Charity Now obedience to Superiours is a debt and we injure them if we do not pay it but avoiding Scandal is a duty of charity which indeed we are obliged to as far as we can but not till we have given to every one his due It is therefore saies Bishop Sanderson no more lawful for me to disobey the lawful command of a Superiour to prevent thereby the Offence of one or a few Brethren than it is lawful for me to do one Man wrong to do another Man a courtesy withal or than it is lawful for me to rob the Exchequer to Relieve an Hospital If it be reply'd that tho' the care of not giving Offence be in respect of our Brother but a debt of Charity yet in regard of God it is a legal debt since he may and do's require it as due and we do him wrong if we disobey him I grant indeed that we are requir'd both to be obedient to Superiours and to be Charitable to our Brother but then I say this is not the Charity which God requires when I give what is none of my own A servant must be Charitable to the Poor according to his ability but he must not rob his Master to Relieve them Our Superiours only must consider the danger of Scandal but we must consider the duty we owe them this being a matter wherein we cannot shew our charity without violating the right of our Superiours Thus then it is plain that they are things merely indifferent not only in their own nature but also in respect to us in the use of which we are obliged to consider the Weakness of our Brethren What is our duty must be done tho' Scandal follow it but in matters wherein our practice is not determin'd by any command we ought so to exercise our Liberty as to avoid if possible giving any Offence 'T is an undoubted part of Christian Charity to endeavour by admonition instruction good example and by the forbearance of things lawful at which we foresee our Neighbour out of weakness will be apt to be Scandaliz'd to prevent his falling into any sin or mischief After this manner do we profess our selves ready to do or forbear any thing in our own power to gain Dissenters to the Church but