as neither having means to cometo the knowledge of it or if he had the Circumstances of his condition not requiring that he should so accurately inform himself about it In such a Case as this I say a man cannot formally be said to be guilty of sin in obeying his Lawful Superiours though the instance in which he obeys should happen to contradict some Law of God For the Law of God here is as no Law to him that is it doth not oblige him because he neither knows it nor is bound to know it And where there is no Law there is no transgression And then further this is also to be remembred that when we own that a man may be guilty of sin as well in obeying his Superiours when he only doubts of the Lawfulness of the Action commanded as when he is Perswaded that the Action is unlawful I say this we are to remember that when ever this Case happens the mans sin doth not lye in his obeying his Superiours with a Doubting Conscience which is commonly run away with For the man would as certainly sin if in this Case he did the Action with a Perswasion that it was Lawful as he doth in doing it with a Doubt whether it be Lawful or no. But the sin lies here viz. in doing an Action which Gods Law hath forbid and which the man would have known to be an ill Action if he had been so honest and so careful in minding his Duty as he should have been It is his Acting contrary to a Law of God that here makes the matter of the sin and it is his vitious criminal Ignorance of that Law which gives the Form to it But as for the obeying his Superiours whether with a Doubt or without one that is no part or ingredient of the sin at all Fifthly We add this further That whatever Power or Right we give to our Superiours for the over-ruling a Private Doubt It is not to be extended so far as either to destroy the Truth or to supersede the Vse of those Rules I have before laid down in order to the directing a mans proceeding in the Case of a Double Doubt For this Case of obeying the Commands of our Superiours when we doubt of the Lawfulness of them being a Double Doubt as properly as any other those Rules are here to take place as much as in any other instance And therefore where ever a mans Doubts are in this Case very unequal That is to say he apprehends himself in much greater danger of sinning if he obey his Superiours in this particular instance than if he obey them not as having abundantly more Reason to believe that their Commands are Unlawful than that they are Lawful In that Case we cannot say â—e is obliged to obey but should rather disobey supposing all other Considerations be equal For no man is bound to obey his Superiours any farther than they command Lawful things And therefore if it be two to one more Probable that their Command is Vnlawful than that it is Lawful it is likewise more Probable that a man in this Instance is not to obey them And a greater Probability caeteris paribus is always to be chosen before a less according to our First Rule But then though the Authority of our Superiours alone will not in this Case be of force enough to retrieve the Ballance which is so far inclined the other way and to turn it on its own side Yet there may be and very usually are such other Arguments drawn from the Consideration of the greater sin and the more dreadful Consequences of disobeying in this instance than of obeying As will to any reasonable man out-weigh all the Probabilities on the other side so long as they are not so great as to create a perswasion and make it reasonable for the man rather to do the Action how strong soever his Doubts be of the unlawfulness of it so long as they are but Doubts than to omit it after Lawful Authority hath enjoyned it But however this happen It is always to be born in mind as before that if it should prove that our Superiours do command nothing in the particular Instances but what they Lawfully may do It will not justifie any mans disobedience to say that he apprehended it was more dangerous or more sinful to obey them than to disobey them For our Mistakes and false Reasonings will not take off from the Obligation that is upon us to obey our Lawful Superiours in their Lawful Commands unless as I have often said we can satisfie our selves that in those Instances we neither were bound nor had sufficient means to understand better And now having thus cleared our way by removing from our Question those things that are Foreign to it and which indeed by being usually blended with it have made it more Intricate than otherwise it would be we are pretty well prepared to propose our Point In the Sixth place then Excluding as we have done out of our Case all those Things and Circumstances we have been speaking of with none of which we have here to do the plain Question before us is this Whether in the Case of a pure Doubt about the Lawfulness or Vnlawfulness of an Action where the Probabilities are on both sides pretty equal and where likewise the Man concerned hath done all that he was obliged to do for the satisfying himself Whether I say in this Case the Command of a Lawful Superiour ought not so far to over-ballance the Doubt as not only to make it reasonable for the Man to do that of which he doubteth but also to oblige him so to do We hold the Affirmative of this Question and I now come to give the Reasons why we so hold which is the Second thing to be done under this Head II. Our Proposition is this That if Lawful Authority do Command us to do a thing which as on the one hand we cannot say it is Lawful so on the other hand we cannot say it is Vnlawful but our Judgment remains suspended as having equal or near equal Arguments on both sides In such a Case as this though if we were left to our own Choice we should generally forbear the Action for the Reasons I before gave yet being Commanded by our Superiours who by the Law of God have Authority over us it is not only reasonable but our Duty to do it For First of all even in point of Humility and Modesty though there was no other consideration one would think that a Subject owes as much deference to the Judgment and Discretion of his Superiours as this comes to So much influence as this even a Confessor or a Private Friend hath over our Consciences In a Case where we are altogether uncertain on both sides we usually so far submit our selves to them as to be swayed and over-ruled by what they advise and that oftentimes not so much upon Consideration of the weight and force of their Reasons
one in this Question a lawful command of our Superiours for fear of some evil that may by chance happen to some others through their own fault and we prove it by this reason which our Dissenting Brethren must own for true and good because every one is bound to have a greater care of his own than others Salvation and consequently rather to avoid sin in himself than to prevent it in his Brethren If it be here asked as it is by some whether any human Authority can make that action cease to be Scandalous which if done without any such Command had been criminal upon the account of the Scandal that followed it I Answer that no Authority whether divine or human can secure that others shall not be Offended by what I do out of obedience to their Commands but then it doth free me from all guilt and blame by making that to become my duty to do which if I had done needlesly without any great reason and my Brother had been hurt and his Conscience wounded by it might have been justly charged with uncharitableness greater or less according as the Scandal was more or less probable to follow This must be granted that the Laws of God or Man otherwise obligatory do not lose their binding force because of some Scandal that may possibly happen from our Complyance with them or else all Authority is utterly void and insignificant and every Man is at liberty to do all things as himself pleaseth for to borrow the words of the excellent Bishop Sanderson 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 Man or other either did or might take offence thereat Whether such a Constitution or Command of our Superiours be Scandalous or no every one must judge for himself and so according to his own private opinion of the goodness or hurtfulness of what is required he is free to obey it or not which is directly to dissolve all Government and to bring in certain disorder and everlasting confusion every one doing what is good in his own Eyes 3. It is said that Avoiding of Scandal is a main duty of charity May Superiours therefore at their pleasure appoint how far I shall shew my charity towards my Brothers Soul then surely an inferiour Earthly Court may cross the determinations of the High Court of Heaven This Mr. Jeans urgeth also out of Amesius but it is easily replyed That here is no Crossing the determinations of God since it is his express will that in all lawful things we should obey our Governours and he who hath made this our duty will not lay to our charge the mischiefs that may sometimes without our fault through the folly and peevishness of Men follow from it and certainly it is as equal and reasonable that our Superiours should appoint how far I shall exercise my charity towards my Brethren as it is that the mistake and prejudice of any private Christians should set bounds to their Power and Authority Cancel the publick Laws or that every ignorant and froward Brother should determin how far we shall be obedient to those whom God hath set over us either in Church or State But to give a more full Answer to this we must know that tho charity be the great duty especially of the Christian Religion yet duties of justice as they are commonly called are of stricter obligation than duties of charity and we are bound to pay our debts before we give an alms Now obedience to Superiours is a debt we owe to them which they have right to exact of us so that they may accuse us of injury if we perform it not But a great care to hinder sin in others or not to Scandalize them is a duty of charity which indeed we are obliged unto as far as we can but not till after we have given to every one what is his due and right It is therefore no more Lawful for me saith the forenamed most Judicious Bishop Sanderson to disobey the lawful Command of a Superiour to prevent thereby the offence of one or a few Brethren then it is lawful for me to do one man wrong to do another man a courtesie withal or than it is lawful for me to rob the Exchequer to relieve an Hospital According to that known saying of St. Austin Quis est qui dicat ut habeamus quod demus pauperibus faciamus furta divitibus Who is it that saith it is lawful to steal from the rich what we may bestow on the poor or to refuse to pay Taxes on pretence that you know those who have more need of your money To this Mr. Jeans replies Suppose saith he 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 doth challenge it as due and we do him wrong if we disobey him Here I grant indeed that both are required by God at our hands that we should be obedient to our Superiours and that we should be always ready to shew charity to our Brethren but then I say this is not the charity which God requires when I give to those in want what is none of mine own This is not an instance or expression of that love and kindness which by the Law of God we owe to our Brother to do him good by wronging our Superiours God hath obliged Servants to be merciful to the poor to their power as well as to be true and faithful to their Masters but that is no part of the mercy which God requires from them to give away their Masters goods without his leave tho it were to those who stand in great need of relief God hath Commanded all Christians to have a great care of being any occasion of their Brothers sin or fall but then this must necessarily be understood only of things subject to our own ordering and management In all cases wherein we are at our own disposal we are bound charitably to regard our Brother But in instances where our practice is determined by Authority our Superiours only are to consider the danger of Scandal we must consider the duty we owe to them this being a matter wherein we cannot shew our charity without violating the right of our Superiours It remains then in the words of another great Bishop in what case soever we are bound to obey God or Man in that case and in that conjunction of circumstances we have nothing permitted to our choice and consequently there is no place for any act of charity and have no Authority to remit of the right of God or our Superiour and to comply with our Neighbour in such
are Church-Members and in a State of Communion are bound to all the Acts of external and visible Communion with the Church The exercise of Church Authority consists in Receiving in or Shutting out of the Church To receive into the Church is to admit them to all external Acts of Communion to Shut or Cast out of the Church is to deny them the external and visible Communion of the Church not to allow them to Pray or receive the Lords Supper or perform any Religious Offices in the publick Assemblies of the Church Now all this Church Authority would signifie nothing were not External and Actual Communion both the Priviledge and Duty of every Christian and yet this is all the Authority Christ hath given to His Church 5. And to confirm all this nothing is more plain in Scripture than that Separation from a Church is to withdraw from the visible Communion of it and there can be no Notion of Separation without this now if Separation from Religious Assemblies be to break Communion then to live in Communion with the Church requires our Actual Communicating with the Church in all Religious Duties And that this is the true Notion of Separation is easily proved from the most express testimonies 2 Cor. 6. 17. Wherefore come out from among them and be ye separate saith the Lord and touch no unclean thing and I will receive you Where come out from among them and be ye separate plainly signifies to forsake the Assemblies of Idolaters not to Communicate with them in their Idolatrous Worship So that not to joyn with any Men or Church in their Idolatrous Worship is to Separate from their Communion which is a very Godly Separation when the Worship is Idolatrous and Sinful but a Schismatical Separation when it is not Thus St. John tells us of the Ancient Hereticks They went out from us because they were not of us for if 1 John 2. 19. they had been of us they would no doubt have continued with us but they went out that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us Where their going out from them plainly signifies their forsaking Christian Assemblies upon which account the Author of the Epistle to the Hebrews admonishes the Christians not to forsake the Assembling of themselves together as the manner of some is in which he Heb. 10. 25. refers to the Separation of those Ancient Hereticks And thus accordingly to have Fellowship or Communion with any is to partake with them in their Religious Mysteries By this Argument St. Paul disswades the Corinthians for Eating of the Idols Feast because they were Sacrifices to Evil Spirits and by partaking of those Sacrifices they had Communion with them But I say that the things which the 1 Cor. 10. 20 21. Gentiles Sacrifice they Sacrifice to Devils and not to God and I would not that you should have Fellowship with Devils Ye cannot Drink the Cup of the Lord and the Cup of Devils ye cannot be partakers of the Lords Table and of the Table of Devils So that tho we must first be in a state of Communion with Christ and his Church must first be received into Covenant and by Baptism be incorporated into the Christian Church before we have any right to Communicate with this Church yet no Man can preserve his Church-state without Actual Communion no Man has Communion with Christ or his Church but he who Actually Communicates in all Religious Offices and Christian Institutions a state of Communion confers a right to Communicate but Actual Communion consists in the exercise of Communion and a right to Communicate without Actual Communion is worth nothing as no right or priviledge is without the Exercise of it for enjoyment consists in Acts and all the Blessings of the Gospel all the Blessings of Christian Communion are conveyed to us by Actual Communion So that if we would partake of the Blessings of Christ if we would Reap the advantages of Church-Communion we must live in Actual Communion and not content our selves with a dormant and useless right which we never bring into Act. This is sufficient to prove the necessity of Actual Communion with the Christian Church when it may be had for where it cannot be had Non-Communion is no Sin for we are not obliged to Impossibilities he who lives in a Country or travels through any Country where there is no true Christian Church to Communicate with cannot enjoy Actual Communion the right and Duty of Communion continues tho necessity may suspend the Act. But the greater difficulty is whether it be not Lawful to suspend our Communion with any particular Churches when we see the Church divided into a great many Parties and Factions which refuse Communion with each other which is the deplorable state of the Church at this day among us Presbyterians Independents Anabaptists Quakers all Separate from the Church of England and from each other and from hence some conclude it Lawful to suspend Communion with all the divided Parties which is just such a reason for a Total suspension of Church-Communion as the different and contrary opinions in Religion are for Scepticism and infidelity Because there are a great many kinds of Religions in the World and a great many divided Sects of the Christian Religion therefore some Men will be of no Religion and because the Christian Church is divided into a great many opposite and Separate Communions therefore others will be of no Church and the reason is as strong in one case as it is in the other that is indeed it holds in neither For it is possible to discover which is the true Religion notwithstanding all these different and contrary perswasions about it and it is equally possible to find out which of these divided Communions is a true and Sound Member of the Catholick Church and when we know that we are bound to maintain Communion with it Indeed if such Divisions and Separations excuse us from Actual Communion with the Church Actual Communion never was and is never likely to be a Duty long together for there never was any state of the Church so happy long together as to be without divisions even in the Apostles times there were those who Separated from the Communion of the Apostles and set up private Conventicles of their own and so it has been in all succeeding Ages of the Church and so it is likely to continue and if we are not bound to Communicate with the Church while there are any Hereticks or Schismaticks who divide from the Church farewell to all Church Communion in this World Should any Man indeed Travel into a Strange Country and there find a Schism in the Christian Church it were very fitting for him to Suspend Communion with either Party till he had opportunity to acquaint himself with the state of the Controversie so as to judge which party is the Schismatick and then he is bound if he understand their Language to Communicate
Forms of Admission as he is pleased to Institute which under the Gospel is Baptism as under the Law it was Circumcision I was discoursing of Gods visible way of Forming a Church which I asserted to be by granting a Church-Covenant which is that Divine Charter on which the Church is Founded but then lest any one should question how men are admitted into this Covenant I added that God had invested some Persons with Power and Authority to receive others into this Covenant by Baptism and by receiving them into Covenant they make them Members of that Church which is Founded on this Covenant Now what of all this will any sober Dissenter deny Here is no dispute who is invested with this Power what form of Church-Government Christ Instituted whether Episcopal or Presbyterian here is no Dispute about the validity of Orders or Succession or in what cases Baptism may be valid which is not Administred by a valid Authority This did not concern my present Argument which proceeds upon a quite different Hypothesis viz. the necessity of Communion with the one Church and Body of Christ for all those who are or would be owned to be Christians or Members of Christs Body I make no inquiry by whom they have been Baptized or whether they were rightly Baptized or not but taking all these things for granted I inquire whether Baptism do not make us Church-Members whether it makes us Members of a Particular or Universal Church whether a Church-Member be not bound to Communion with the whole Catholick Church whether he that separates from any sound part of the Catholick Church be not a Schismatick from the whole Church whether we be not bound to maintain constant Communion with that particular Church in which we live and with which we can when we please Communicate occasionally whether it be consistent with Catholick Communion to communicate with two Churches which are in a state of Separation from each other if you have any thing to say to these matters you shall have a fair hearing but all your Queries which proceed upon a mistaken Hypothesis of your own do not concern me and yet to oblige you if it be possible I shall briefly consider them 1. Your first Query is Whether a Pious Dissenter supposed to be received into the Church by such as he believes to be fully invested with sufficient Power is in as bad a condition as a Moral Heathen or in a worse than a Papist Ans The Catholick Church has been so indulgent to Hereticks and Schismaticks as to determine against the Necessity of Rebaptization if they have been once though irregularly baptized This you may find a particular account of in the Vindication of the Defence of Dr. Still p. 22. c. But the question is whether if they continue Schismaticks whatever their other pretences to Piety be their Condition be not as dangerous as the Condition of Moral Heathens and Papists 2. Whether the Submission to the Power and Censures of this Church which all must own to be a sound Church be part of the Divine Covenant which Vnites the Members of the Catholick Church to God and to each other Ans This is a captious question which must be distinctly answered A general Submission and Obedience to the Authority and Censures of the Church though it cannot properly be called a part of that Divine Covenant whereon the Church is founded which primarily respects the promise of Salvation by Christ through Faith in his Bloud yet it is a necessary church-Church-Duty and Essential to Church-Communion and so may be called a part of the Covenant if by the Covenant we understand all those Duties which are required of baptized Christians and Members of the Church by a Divine positive Law as Obedience to Church-Governours is But then Obedience to the Church of England is not an universal Duty incumbent on all Christians but onely on those which are or ought to live in Obedience to this particular Church for the particular exercises of Church-Authoritie and Jurisdiction is confined within certain limits as of necessitie it must be and though all Orthodox Churches must live in Communion with each other yet no particular Church can pretend to any original Authority over another Church or the Members of it as is the constant Doctrine of Protestants in opposition to the Usurpations of the Church of Rome But I perceive Sir you know no difference between the Authority and Power and the Communion of the Church But you add If it be then as he who is not admitted into this Church is no Member of the Catholick and has no right to the benefits of being a Member of Christs Body so is it with every one who is excluded by Church-Censures though excommunicated for a slight contempt or neglect nay for a wrongful cause Truly Sir I know not how any man is admitted into the Church of England any otherwise than as he is admitted into the whole Catholick Church viz by Baptism which does not make us Members of any particular Church but of the Universal Church which Obliges us to Communicate with that part of the Catholick Church wherein we live and whoever lives in England and renounces Communion with the Church of England is a Schismatick from the Cathelick Church And whoever is Excommunicated from one sound part of the Catholick Church is Excommunicated from the whole But then there is this difference between Excommunication and Schism the first is a Judicial Sentence the second is a Man 's own Choice the first is not valid unless it be inflicted for a just cause the second is always valid and does in its own nature cut Men off from all Communion with Christs Body I say in its own Nature for I will not pretend to determine the final States of Men for I know not what gracious allowances God will make for some Schismaticks no more than I do what favour he may allow to other Sinners But you proceed If it be no part of the Divine Covenant then a Man that lives here may be a true Member of the Catholick Church though he is not in Communion with this Sound Church This is another Horn of your formidable Dilemma If Obedience to the Authoritie and Censures of the particular National Church of England is no part of the Divine Covenant then those Baptized Christians who live in England are not bound to the Communion of the Church of England and may be Catholick Christians for all that As if because the Subjects of Spain are not bound to obey the King of England therefore English Men are not bound to obey him neither but may be very good Subjects for all that We are bound by the Divine Law to live in Communion with all true Catholick Churches and to obey the Governours of the Church wherein we live and therefore though Obedience to the Church of England be not a Law to all the World yet it is a Law to all English Christians inhabiting in
Disobedience but methinks it is a little absurd to say that those continue Members of the Church who separate from it Schism and Separation from the Church is just what Treason and Rebellion is in the State and such persons by your own confession cease to be sound Members You add Nay possibly that there should be several Religious Assemblies living by different Customs and Rules and yet continuing Members of the National Church is not more inconsistent than that particular places should have their particular Customs and By-Laws differing from the Common Law of the Land without making a distinct Government Ans Whatever variety and difference in the Rules of Worship in several Congregations is consistent with one Communion may be granted when the prudence of Governours sees it fit and expedient But Mr. Humphry's project which I perceive you are nibling at of making a National Church by an Act of Parliament which should declare Presbyterians Independants c. to be Parts of the National Church is certainly the cunningest way of curing Schism that ever was thought on but you may find that expedient for Union at large considered in the Vindication of the Defence of Dr. Still And thus Sir I proceed to your Third Letter and here you run nothing but Dregs and Lees and I hope you will not think it any neglect of you if I do not answer you Paragraph by Paragraph as I have done your first Letter there being little new in this but only a Repetition of your old Queries and though you know Repetitions are very convenient to lengthen a Sermon there is no need of such Arts to lengthen this Answer which is too long already Your first Charge upon me is that I only amuse People with Equivocal Words and Terms that I play Letters 3. p. 16. with the words Church and Schism which had been no fault had I played the right way with them that is had I ridiculed them as you do who think them words only fit to be played with who have found out a Church without any Government which is only an Intreague p. 12. between Clergy-men on all sides who will not allow causeless Separation from a Sound part of the Catholick p. 17. Church to be Schism but place Schism wholly in want of Charity and make it nothing else but some Divisions and Contentions between the Members of the same Church who still live in Communion with one another a true Independent Notion to justifie causeless Separations Divisions in the Church are certainly very Sinful and a degree of Schism as unnatural as if the Members of the same Body should fight with each other while they are United to the same Body but to divide from the same Body is the perfection of Schism unless a quarrel be a Rent and Schism but Separation be none You desire me to define what I mean by a Church when considered as Catholick and Universal and when taken in a more restrained sense But this I think I have done already if you had eyes to see it and you may find it done more largely in the Defence of Dr. Still But would not any Man who had ever seen this discourse which you undertake to confute wonder to hear you ask me whether a Man has a right to be of a particular p. 18. Church as he is a Christian when the whole design of that Tract is to prove that every Christian by being so is a Member of the Catholick Church and has a right to Communicate with all sound parts of the Catholick Church and bound to Communicate with that part of it in which he lives In the next place you attempt to prove that the Influences and Operations of the Holy Spirit are not confined to the Visible but Invisible Church but not p. 19. to examine your proof of it which is nothing to the purpose you may consider that the Visible and Invisible Church on Earth are not two but one Church not that every Member of the Visible Church is a Member also of the Invisible that is every profest Christian is not a true Believer but whoever is not a Member of the Visible Church and does not live in Communion with it when it may be had is not that we know of a Member of the Invisible Church We have no way to prove that any Man is a Member of the Invisible who is not a Member of the Visible Church and what we do not and cannot know does not concern us secret things belong to God and with him it becomes us to leave them But this also you may find more largely discourst in the Vindication of the Defence You urge the case of Pope Victor who as you say in a Council or full representative of that Church excommunicated p. 21. the poor Asians upon the Paschal Controversy And that each Church was far enough from owning each others Members for their own What should the poor Lay-Christians do in this divided State could they not Communicate with both or either without danger of Schism themselves Ans It is an easie matter to put hard Cases almost about any thing and if a particular hard Case which either may possibly happen or has sometimes happened is sufficient to overthrow a standing and general Rule and to confute the most plain and convincing Evidence for it there is nothing in Religion can be firm and stable In the very same manner Men Dispute against the Being of a God and a Providence against the necessity of Baptism and the Lords Supper against the Apostolical Power and Ministry and all Church-Government against the necessity of Believing many fundamental Articles of our Faith because many otherwise very good Men from the Power and Prejudice of Education or through weakness of understanding may be guilty of some damnable Heresies But must there be no standing Laws or Rules because there may happen some hard and difficult Cases Does not humane Power make Provision against such Cases by Courts of Chancery or the Prerogative of the Prince and yet maintain the Authority and Sacredness of Laws And will we not allow God himself a Power of Dispensing with Laws in hard Cases without destroying the Authority of his Laws Is not Church-Communion a necessary Duty because it may so happen that sometimes I cannot Communicate with any Church Is not Schism a very grievous and damning sin because it may happen that Men may be unavoidably innocently and without a Schismatical mind engaged in a Schism I have evidently proved the necessity of Church-Unity and Communion and the evil and danger of Schism and if you can answer the Scripture-Evidence produced in this Cause I will carefully consider it but it is no confutation of a plain Law to urge hard Cases against it which will overthrow all Laws that ever were made If you imagine or can produce any real Case wherein it is almost impossible for the Persons concerned to know that they are guilty
saies nothing that the divine Spirit confines his Influences and Operations to the Vnity of the Church in such Conformity not only makes such Conformity necessary to Salvation but imputes to the Church the Damnation of many Thousands of Souls who might expect to be saved upon other Terms That the Divine Spirit confines his influences ordinarily to the Unity of the Church I do assert but that this is in Conformity to the Church of England I do not assert For Conformity to the Church of England is not Essential to the Unity of the Catholick Church for every Church has authority to prescribe its own Rites and Ceremonies of Worship in Conformity to the general Rules of the Gospel And therefore though the Unity of the Church is necessary to intitle Men to the ordinary influences of Gods Grace and consequently is necessary to Salvation yet Conformity to the Church of England is not necessary to the Unity of the Church because Christians who live under the Government and Jurisdiction of other Churches may and do preserve the Unity of the Church without conformity to the Church of England Obedience indeed and Subjection to church-Church-Authority in all Lawful things is necessary to the Unity of the Church and necessary to Salvation and consequently it is a necessary Duty to conform to all the Lawful and Innocent Customs of the Church wherein we live but this does not make the particular Laws of Conformity which are different in different Churches to be necessary to Salvation unless you will say the Church has no Authority but only in things absolutely necessary to Salvation which destroys all the external Order and Discipline of the Church and charges all the Churches in the World with destroying Mens Souls if any persons be so Humorsom and Peevish as to break Communion with them for such Reasons But such kind of Cavils as these you may find answered at large in the Vindication of the Defence and thither I refer you if you desire to see any more of it Thus Sir I have with great patience answered your Questions not that they needed or deserved any Answer but that you might not think your self too much despised nor other weak People think your Questions unanswered And now I have given you an Answer I shall take the Confidence to give you a little Ghostly Counsel too which you need a great deal more than an Answer I have not troubled my Head to inquire Scrupulously who you are nor do I use to trust Common Fame in such matters but though I know not you yet I perceive you know me and if as you say you have often p. 1. heard me with great Satisfaction and as you hope not without edifying thereby I think it would have become you to have treated me with a little more Civility than you have done if it be in your Nature to be Civil to a Clergy-Man And I wish more for your own sake than for mine you had done so for I thank God I have learnt not only by the precepts and example of my great Master but by frequent Tryals to go through good Report and evil Report and to bear the most invidious and Spightful Reflections with an equal mind But as contemptible as a Clergy-Man is now these things will be accounted for another day For it is very evident that you have a great Spight at the whole Order whatever personal kindness you may have for some Men they are but a Herd of Clergy-men and you know no other use of a Bishop but to oversee admonish and Censure those who are apt to Preface go beyond their due Bounds I confess this way of Railery is grown very fashionable and I perceive you are resolved to be in the Mode and to be an accomplisht Gentleman but I never knew a man that was seriously religious who durst affront the Servants for their Masters sake But you Sir are in the very height of the fashion and think their Office as contemptible as their Persons generally are thought to be you hope to be saved without understanding the Notion of Church-Government as 't is intreagued by Clergy-men of all sides And I hope you may be saved without understanding a great many other things besides Church-Government or else I doubt your Salvation may be hazardous But this is too plain a contempt of all Church-Authority for though the Church of Rome has usurpt an unlimited and Tyrannical Power under the Notion of Church-Government yet what has the Sound Church of England as you own it done What occasion did I give for this Censure who have expresly confined the Exercise of Church-Authority to Church-Communion to receiving in and putting out of the Church And if Resol of Cases p. 39. the Church be no Society I would desire to know what it is and if be a Society how can any Society subsist without Authority in some Persons to receive in and to shut out of the Society But the truth is tho you pretend to be in Communion with the Church of England you make the Church it self a very needless and insignificant thing for you know no necessity of Communicating with any Church you will not allow it to be Schism to Separate from the Church you think it a pretty indifferent thing whether Men be Baptized or not or by whom they are Baptized what your Opinion is about the Sacrament of the Lords Supper I do not know though if you are consistent with your self I doubt that is a very indifferent Ceremony too Truly to deal plainly with you I think you have more need to be taught your Catechism than to set up for a Writer of Books and let me in time warn you what the consequence of this way you are in is likely to be which is no less than a contempt of all revealed and institute Religion and consequently of Christianity Natural Religion may subsist without any positive Institutions but revealed Religion never did and never can for when God Transacts with Mankind in the way of a Visible Covenant there must be some Visible Ministers and Visible Sacraments of this Covenant And when the Evangelical Ministers and Sacraments fall into contempt Men must think meanly of Christianity and return to what they call natural Religion which is a Religion without a Priest and without a Sacrifice which cannot save a Sinner but by uncovenanted Grace and Mercy which no Man can be sure of and which no Man shall find who rejects a Priest and Sacrifice of Gods providing And to convince you of this you may observe that the contempt of the Notion of a Church of the Evangelical Priesthood and Sacraments is originally owing to Deists and Socinians to those who profess to believe in God and to worship him according to the Laws of natural Religion but believe nothing at all of Christ or to those who profess to believe in Christ but believe him only to be a meer Man and a great Reformer of Natural
before Luther 2. A Discourse about Tradition shewing what is meant by it and what Tradition is to be received and what Tradition is to be rejected 3. The difference of the Case between the Separation of Protestants from the Church of Rome and the Separation of Dissenters from the Church of England 4. The Protestant Resolution of Faith c. THE CASE OF Lay-Communion WITH THE CHURCH of ENGLAND CONSIDERED And the Lawfulness of it shew'd from the Testimony of above an hundred eminent Non-conformists of several Perswasions Published for the satisfaction of the Scrupulous and to prevent the Sufferings which such needlesly expose themselves to The Second Edition corrected by the Author LONDON Printed for Richard Chiswell at the Rose and Crown in St. Paul's Church-Yard M. DC LXXXIV TO THE DISSENTERS FROM THE Church of England Dear Brethren YOU being at this time called upon by Authority to join in Communion with the Church and the Laws ordered to be put in Execution against such as refuse it It 's both your Duty and Interest to enquire into the grounds upon which you deny Obedience to the Laws Communion with the Church of God and thereby expose our Religion to danger and your selves to suffering In which unless the Cause be good the Call clear and Mr. Mede 's Farewel Serm. on 1 Cor. 1. 3. the End right it cannot bring Peace to your selves or be acceptable to God Not bring Peace to your selves For we cannot suffer joyfully the Mr. Read 's Case p. 4. spoiling of our Goods the confinement of our Persons the ruin of our Families unless Conscience be able truly to say I would have done any thing but sin against God that I might have avoided those Sufferings from Men. Not be acceptable to God to whom all are accountable Continuat of Morn Exer. Ser. 4. p. 92. for what Portion he hath intrusted them with of the things of this Life and are not to throw away without sufficient reason and who has made it our Duty to do what we can without Sin in Obedience to that Authority which he hath set over us as you are told by some Read Ibid. in the same condition with your selves To assist Persons in this Enquiry I have observed that of late several of the Church of England have undertaken the most material Points that you do question and have handled them with that Candor and Calmness which becomes their Profession and the gravity of the Arguments and which may the better invite those that are willing to be satisfied to peruse and consider them But because Truth and Reason do too often suffer by the Prejudices we have against particular Persons to remove as much as may be that Obstruction I have in this Treatise shewed that these Authors are not alone but have the concurrent Testimony of the most eminent Non-conformists for them who do generally grant that there is nothing required in the Parochial Communion of the Church of England that can be a sufficient reason for Separation from it The sence of many of these I have here collected and for one hundred I could easily have produced two if the Cause were to go by the Poll So that if Reason or Authority will prevail I hope that yet your Satisfaction and Recovery to the Communion of the Church is not to be despaired of Which God of his infinite Mercy grant for your own and the Churches sake Amen THE CONTENTS THE difference betwixt Ministerial and Lay-Communion Pag. 1 The Dissenters grant the Church of England to be a True Church p. 4 That they are not totally to separate from it p. 12 That they are to comply with it as far as lawfully they can p. 16 That Defects in Worship if not Essential are no just reason for Separation p. 23 That the expectation of better Edification is no sufficient reason to with-hold Communion p. 39 The badness of Ministers will not justify Separation p. 48 The neglect or want of Discipline no sufficient reason to separate p. 59 The Opinion which the Non-conformists have of the several Practices of the Church of England which its Lay-Members are concerned in p. 64 That Forms of Prayer are lawful and do not stint the Spirit ibid. That publick prescribed Forms may lawfully be joined with p. 66 That the Liturgy or Common-Prayer is for its Matter sound and good and for its Form tolerable if not useful p. 69 That Kneeling at the Sacrament is not idolatrous nor unlawful and no sufficient reason to separate from that Ordinance p. 71 72 That standing up at the Creed and Gospel is lawful p. 73 The Conclusion ibid. THE NON-CONFORMISTS PLEA FOR Lay-Communion With the CHURCH of ENGLAND THE Christian World is divided into two Ranks Ecclesiastical and Civil usually known by the Names of Clergy and Laity Ministers and People The Clergy besides the things essentially belonging to their Office are by the Laws of all well-ordered Churches in the World strictly obliged by Declarations or Subscriptions or both to own and maintain the Doctrine Discipline and Constitution of the Church into which they are admitted Thus in the Church of England they do subscribe to the Truth of the Doctrine more especially contained in the thirty nine Articles and declare that they will use the Forms and Rites contained in the Liturgy and promise to submit to the Government in its Orders The design of all which is to preserve the Peace of the Church and the Unity of Christians which doth much depend upon that of its Officers and Teachers But the Laity are under no such Obligations there being no Declarations or Subscriptions required of them nor any thing more than to attend upon and joyn with the Worship practised and allowed in the Church Thus it is in the Church of England as it is acknowledged by Mr. Baxter to whom when it Defence of the Cure part 2. pag. 29. was objected that many Errors in Doctrine and Life were imposed as Conditions of Communion he replies What is imposed on you as a Condition to your Communion in the Doctrine and Prayers of the Parish-Churches but your actual Communion it self In discoursing therefore about the Lawfulness of Communion with a Church the Difference betwixt these two must be carefully observed lest the things required only of one Order of Men should be thought to belong to all It 's observed by one That the Original of all Our Mischiefs A Book licensed by Mr. Cranford sprung from Mens confounding the terms of Ministerial Conformity with those of Lay-Communion with the Parochial Assemblies there being much more required of the Ministers than of the People Private Persons having much less to say for themselves in absenting from the publick Worship of God tho performed by the Liturgy than the Pastor hath for not taking Oaths c. Certainly if this Difference were but observ'd and the Case of Lay-Communion truly stated and understood the People would not be far more
Sin be Sin because it s fordidden then Indifferent is Indifferent because its neither injoyed nor forbidden For as to make it a Duty there needs a Command and to make it a Sin there needs a Prohibition so where there is neither Command nor Prohibition it s neither Duty nor Sin and must be therefore Indifferent Lawful and Free 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 And I have no more Reason to think that a Duty or a Sin which it takes no notice of since all Obligation ariseth from a Law than that not to be a Duty or a Sin which it doth The Nature of Lawful things being as much determined so to be by the want of such Authority as that of Necessary is determined by it And he that shall say that 's a Duty or a Sin which is not so made and declared by any Law may as well say that 's no Duty or Sin which there is a Law about To conclude there must be a Law to make it a Transgression and the want of a Law doth necessarily suppose it to be none and what there is no Law for or against remains Indifferent in it self and Lawful to us As for instance suppose there should be a Dispute concerning Days set apart for the Service and Worship of God how must this be determined but by the Law of Nature or Revelation and how shall we be resolved in the case but by considering what the Law injoyns or forbids in it If we find it not injoyned it can be of it self no Duty if we find it not forbidden it can be of it self no Sin and consequently it 's Lawful and Indifferent and in what we neither Sin by omitting nor observing So the Apostle concludes Rom. 14. 6. He that regardeth a day regardeth it unto the Lord and he that regardeth not the day unto the Lord he doth not regard it that is there was no Law requiring it and so making the observation of it Necessary and no Law forbidding it and so making the observation of it Sinful and therefore Christians were at Liberty to observe or not to observe it as they pleased and in both they did well if so be they had a regard to the Lord in it 2. I shall shew that there are things Indifferent in the Worship of God and that such things though not prescribed may be lawfully used in it T is allowed by all that there is no Command to be expected about the Natural Circumstances of Action and which the Service cannot be celebrated without such as Time and Place and that these are left to humane Prudence to fix and determine But what those Natural Circumstances are is not so universally agreed to And if they be such as aforesaid that is such as the action cannot be performed without then it will very much serve to justify most of the things in dispute and defend our Church in the use and practice of them For what is there almost in that kind amongst us which is not Naturally or Morally necessary to the Action and if Time and Place fall under humane determination because they are naturally necessary then why not also Gesture and Habit which Worship can no more Naturally be celebrated without than the former and consequently a Surplice or Kneeling and Standing may be alike lawfully determined and used as Time for assembling together and a Church to assemble and Officiate in And what Natural Circumstances are to a Natural Action that are Moral Circumstances to a Moral Action and there are Moral as necessary to a Moral Action as there are Natural necessary to a Natural Action As for example what Time and Place are to Natural that are Method and Order to Moral and Religious Acts and can no more be separated from these than the other can be separated from the former and therefore the Method and Order of Administration in Divine Worship where not otherwise determined and appointed by God may as well be determined by Men as Time and Place with respect to the nature end and use of the Service So that the exception made against humane Appointments in Divine Worship viz. that all but natural circumstances must have a Divine Command to legitimate their use and that whatever is not prescribed is therefore prohibited is of no service to them that plead it and it remains good so far notwithstanding that there are things Indifferent in the Worship of God and that the outward Order and Administration of it is left to Christian Prudence And this I shall more particularly prove 1. From the consideration of the Rules laid down in the Gospel relating to the Administration of Divine Worship which except what refer to the Elements c. in the Sacraments are taken from the Nature of the thing and so always were obliging to all Ages under the several variations and forms of Divine Worship and will be always so to all Christians in the World viz. such as respect Order Decency and Edification insisted upon 1 Cor. 14. 26 40. So that we are no otherwise bound than as bound by these measures and where not bound by them vve are free For as in former Ages from the beginning of the World vvhere Revelation did not interpose as it did under the Mosaical Dispensation all persons vvere left at liberty and if so be they had a respect to those natural rules might choose vvhat vvays they pleased for the regulation of Divine Worship So vvhen under the Gospel vve have no other than those Natural rules except as above excepted the particular Circumstrnces are as much novv the matter of our free choice as they vvere then and this or that may be used and observed as the Case requireth and Occasion serves So that if ever there vvere things Indifferent in Gods Worship and the Administration of it was left to the Consideration and Prudence of Mankind it is so still since the Gospel keeps to those eternal Rules which even the Nature of the Thing hath invariably established and which if it ever was sufficient for the guiding of the Church of God in those particulars is certainly so when the Nature of Man is improved by new helps and so he is more capable of judging what may be sutable to that Essential VVorship which God hath prescribed under the Gospel and to Him whom that VVorship is directed to But then that which confirms this is that those Rules are also general and such as will in their use and end respect all People in the VVorld The Apostles in all their Discourses upon this subject rarely do descend to particulars and in what they do shew how far Custom and Charity and the Reason of the thing ought to govern us as in the case of mens being Uncovered in the VVorship of God for which the Apostle doth argue not from Institution but the Nature and Decency
that which mankind would have been had there been no such particular Institution and was in before that Institution 'T was the nature of the Law and the injoining of it by divine Institution so as it became necessary to them that made it a Yoke and a Act. 15. 18. Yoke intolerable and it was a freedom from that Law that constitutes the Liberty which the Apostle treats of in that Epistle And if it be also to be taken as our Author would have it for a freedom in matters of Worship from any thing but what is of Divine Institution that is a secondary sense and which may be taken from some parity of reason betwixt Case and Case but is not the Apostles nor the primary sense of it But take it how we will in this or the other I there shewed that the Apostles exhortation was of no use to them that Case of Indifferent things Pag. 47. plead it against submission to Authority in Indifferent Things when imposed in or about Divine Worship I am now come to the last general head of the aforesaid §. 5. Tract which contained a short account of the things required in our Church as they were either Duty or Indifferent And for an inforcement of that and conclusion of the whole I shall briefly shew how far this Reverend Author consents to or by his concessions must be bound to acknowledge it Indeed he sometimes doth tell us that Nine parts of Ten of all Dissenters say they cannot comply with things required in the English Case Examin pag. 3. 36. 38. Liturgy because they believe the things sinful and unlawful And elsewhere Two hardly of an Hundred think them Indifferent But whether our Author be of that number or at least has reason so to be I shall leave to his own conscience as to himself and to his concessions as to others In which I shall observe the method taken in the aforesaid Tract where I said all things objected against might be refer'd to Posture Forms and Times and shew'd these to be Natural or Moral circumstances of Action and inseparable from it Now in general he grants what are such may be lawfully used And if we pag. 14. come to particulars he doth at last yield it As for postures what more scrupled and opposed than Kneeling at the Sacrament Yet of this he saith There pag. 22. is no command in it and it is Indifferent that in all probability our Saviour administred it Kneeling and sitting pag. 12. backward upon his Legs that no Dissenter refuseth it pag. 36. because it is not decent but because it is a posture of Adoration that our Church doth not intend it as an homage to the Body of Christ there really present but declares that to do it as to the bread were an Idolatry to pag. 12 13. be abhor'd And in conclusion tells us that those that hesitate in that point fear a posture of Adoration used by Idolatrous Papists which is a consideration of no moment as has been already shewed As to Forms of Prayer he saith God has lest us pag. 30. at liberty what words to use and further that for conceived Prayer we know no body saith no other must be used pag. 22. in Gods Worship and if so then Forms may be lawfully used in it But suppose any scruple the use of them Case of Indiff p. 18. he saith however We know no reason but people may hear them if any scruples the use of them he may yet Case Exam. p. 22. have Communion with the Church we hope though he doth not act in it as a Minister As to time he saith the Law of Nature directs and for Festivals such as Purim amongst the Jews he pag. 29. saith It was generally commanded under the precepts of pag. 26. giving thanks for publick mercies Lastly Are the things required unlawful because imposed He answers Some of us including surely himself are not of that mind nay he affirms that the most pag. 39. sober Dissenters will agree in these things that is Natural pag. 7. circumstances to obey the command of Superiours provided it be not such as by circumstances is made sinful But if imposition would make them sinful such a command must not have been obeyed So that in the conclusion I see no reason why our Reverend Brother and the Dissenters he defends and that in all things as he saith agree to the Doctrine professed in the Articles pag. 1. of the Church of England should dissent from the Liturgy and Ceremonies of it as far as Lay-Communion is concerned in them Nor why he should tell us so much of Goals and Sessions and Judicatures and of the Sufferings they endure when if these things be true pag. 41 44. it 's for not doing what they lawfully can It is no wonder when such with-hold communion from the Church and set up other Churches against it that some call them as he complains perverse and contumacious persons â—bid and others call them damnable Schismaticks and pag. 1. are so bold as to say that such a separation from that Church is a separation from Christ And it 's likely he will meet with such that will speak very severe things of his following appeal to God Judge O thou righteous Judge between these people and those who thus pursue pag. 41 44. them I am far from one God is my witness that is a smiter of his fellow-servants as he calls them nor pag. 41. would have any one do what he verily believeth is unlawful but I do think it is the duty of all to do what they lawfully can to hear readily and consider impartially what may be offered for their satisfaction and to suffer patiently where they cannot receive it This I think every truly conscientious person will do and I should question his conscience that doth it not Certainly to return him his own words if our Brethren have any value for the Glory of God for the good and ibid. peace of others Souls for the preserving the Protestant Religion for the union of Protestants against Popish adversaries for any thing indeed that is good and lovely they will rather break than any longer draw this saw of contention and will do as much as in them lies for the repairing of those breaches which must be confessed are no less dangerous than scandalous to our Religion The Kingdom of God is not Meat and Drink but righteousness and peace and Ioy in the Holy Ghost FINIS ERRATA PAg. 3. l. 13. r. I should p. 30. l. antepenult r. imply p. 31. l. 6. r. expressions p. 39. Marg. add to Lightfoot Hor. in Matth. and Mark p. 46. l. 17. 1. Government Books Printed for FINCHAM GARDINER 1. A. A Perswasive 〈…〉 with the Church of England 2. A Resolution of some Cases of Conscience which Respect Church-Communion 3. The Case of Indifferent things used in the
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 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 Châ—ldren 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 Jesus 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 concernâ—ng 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
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 near 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 their Duty in this matter have not heartily endeavoured to satisfie their Minds about the Lawfulness of Conformity in those Points which they stick at If they had one would think that after all their endeavours they should before they pronounced Conformity to be unlawful be able to produce some one plain Text of Scripture for the proving it so either in the whole or in any part of it but this they are not able to do They do indeed produce some Texts of Scripture which they think do make for them But really they are such that if they had not supinely taken up their meaning upon trust but would have been at the pains of carefully examining them and using such helps as they have every where at hand for the understanding them It would have been somewhat difficult for them to have expounded those Texts in such a sense as would infer the unlawfulness of our Communion But further I say it is not probable that the generality of our Dissenters who condemn our Communion as unlawful have ever anxiously applied themselves to the considering the Point or gaining Satisfaction about it because they do not seem to have much consulted their own Teachers in this affair and much less those of our way If they had they would have been disposed to think better of our Communion than they do For not to mention what the Churchmen do teach press in this matter the most Eminent of their own Ministers are ready thus far to give their Testimony to our Communion That there is nothing required in it but what a Lay-Person may Honestly and Lawfully comply with though there may be some things incovenient and which they wish were amended Nay they themselves are ready upon occasion to afford us their Company in all the instances of Lay-Communion But I desire not to enlarge upon this Argument because it is an Invidious one All that I say is that we wish it was not too apparent by many Evidences that most of those who separate from us are so far from having done all they can to bring themselves to a complyance with our Church Constitutions that they have done little or nothing at all towards it But have taken up their Opinions hand over head without much thinking or enquiring and having once taken up an Opinion they adhere to it without scarce so much as once thinking that it is possible for them to be in the wrong If you speak of a Man that may with reason be said to have done his endeavour to satisfie himself about the Points of his Duty in this matter Give us such a one as hath no end no interest to serve by his Religion but only to Please God and to go to Heaven and who in the choice of the way that leads thither hath the Indifference of a Traveller to whom it is all one whether his way light on the right Hand or on the left being only concerned that it be the way which leads to his Journeys end Give us a Man that concerns himself as little as you please in the Speculative Disputes and Controversies of Religion But yet is wonderfully Solicitous about the Practice of his Duty and therefore will refuse no pains or trouble that may give him a right understanding of that Give us a Man that in the midst of the great Heats and Divisions and different Communions of the Church is yet modest and humble and docible That believes he may be mistaken and that his private Friends may be mistaken too and hath such an Esteem and Reverence for the Wisdom of his Governours in Church or State as to admit that it is probable they may see farther into matters of State and Religion than he doth And that therefore every Tenent and Opinion that was inbibed in his Education that was infused by private Men of his acquaintance or that was espoused upon a very few thoughts and little Consideration ought not to be so stifly maintained as to control or to be set in Opposition to the Publick Establishments of Authority Lastly give us a Man that where the Publick Laws do run counter to his private Sentiments and he is at a loss to reconcile his Duty to Men with his Duty to God Yet doth not presently upon this set up a Flag of Defiance to Authority but rather applies himself with all the Indifference and Honesty he can to get a true Information of these matters And to that end he Prays to God continually for his assistance he calls in the best helps and consults the best guides he can his Ears are open to what both sides can say for themselves and he is as willing to read a Book which is writ against his Opinion as one that defends
Answer to this Argument and the Answer indeed which I mainly stand upon Yet there is another Answer given to it by the Casuists which because it is the Answer that our Learned Bishop Sanderson thought fit to pitch upon I ought not to pass it by without mention nor if I can without some improvement I must confess if we do admit this Answer the Authority and Obligation of a Doubting Conscience will be set higher than I do in this Discourse suppose it But however it may be a good Answer to the Dissenters because it unties the difficulty upon their own Principles The Answer is this 2. In the Second place Allowing that the Man whose Case St. Paul speaks to in this Text was really a Doubting Person and not one that was Perswaded as we have hitherto supposed Yet it doth by no means follow that because this Man was guilty of Sin and Condemned for eating those Meats of the Lawfulness of which he Doubted Therefore a Man that Obeys Authority in an Instance where he Doubts of the Lawfulness of the Command that such a Man Sins and is Condemned for so doing This I say doth not at all follow For there is a vast Disparity in the Cases and to argue from one to the other is to argue from a Particular to an Vniversal or from one Particular to another without respect to the different Circumstances of each Case which is against all the Rules of Logick If St. Paul had said He that Doubteth is Damned if he Act there had been some pretence for making his Sentence an universal Proposition so as to extend to all Doubting Men in all Cases But now only saying He that Doubteth is Damned if he eat it shews that he only spoke to the Particular Case that was before him and that other Cases are no farther concerned in his Proposition than as they do agree in Circumstances with the Case he there speaks to Now the Case the Apostle there treats of and That which we are now concerned about are so far from any way agreeing in the main Circumstances by which a Man is to measure the Goodness or the Badness of an Action that there cannot be two Doubtful Cases put that are more different as â— shall now shew If St. Paul do at all here speak to the Case of a Doubting Man he speaks of one that Acted Doubtingly in a matter where it was in his own Power to Act without a Doubt That is He was in such Circumstances that he knew he might certainly without sin refuse to eat those Meats concerning which he doubted for there was no colour of obligation upon him to eat them But yet in this Case where he was perfectly at Liberty to let alone for the serving some evil unwarrantable ends he would not chuse that side which was safe and where he need fear no sin which was to forbear but would chuse that side that was Doubtful that is would run a needless hazard of transgressing some Law of God It is of such a Man and in such a Case as this that St. Paul speaks when he saith He that Doubteth is condemned if he eat Supposing indeed that his words are at all to be expoundin this Sense But now because it is thus in this Case and in all such like if you please Doth it therefore follow from these words that a Man that is in other Circumstances that is not at Liberty to chuse his own way as not being at his own disposal but under the Direction and Government of Authority That this man sins and is condemned if he obey the Orders of his Superiours when he is Doubtful of the Lawfulness of the thing in which he expresseth his Obedience No by no means For this Case hath a quite different Consideration In the former Case there was only danger on one side and that was in Acting and the Man might forbear if he pleased and that without any danger But in the other Case there is danger on both sides and the man runs at least as great a hazard in forbearing the Action nay we say a much greater as if he should do it So that undeniably unless we will make one Rule to serve for all Cases though never so different which is the absurdest thing in the World For any thing that St. Paul hath here said to the contrary this latter man may not only without sin do the thing he doubts of but is bound to do it Whereas if the other man spoken of in the Text should do the Action he doubts of it might be a sin in him But further That St. Paul meant not to extend his Proposition to all Doubtful Cases but only to such Cases as he here treats of is pretty evident from the Reason that he gives why he that eateth Doubtingly sins in so doing viz. Because he eateth not of Faith He doth not say He that Doubteth is Condemned if he eat because he eateth with a Doubting Conscience If he had said so I grant the Reason of his Proposition would have reached all Doubting men in all Cases but this is that which he saith He that Doubteth is condemned if he eat because he eateth not of Faith So that if there be any Doubtful Cases wherein a Man may Act with Faith notwithstanding his Doubt I hope it will be allowed that those Cases are excepted out of St. Paul's Proposition Now that there are such Cases and that our Case of Obeying Authority is one of them I thus prove Whosoever so Acts as that he is satisfied in his own mind that what he doth is according to his Duty in the present Circumstances Such a Man Acts with Faith in reference to that Action This is evident from the very Notion of Faith as it is here spoken of of which I have before given an Account But now it is very possible that a Man may have a Doubt concerning the Lawfulness of an Action and yet be in such Circumstances as that he shall be satisfied that is very reasonable and agreeable to his Duty nay as the Case may be that he is really bound to do that Action concerning which he thus Doubts rather than not to do it Because the not doing that Action all things considered appears to him more dangerous or attended with worse Consequences This now being granted it undeniably follows That wherever a man lights into these Circumstances he is not a Sinner even according to the strictest Sense of these words though he Act with some kind of Doubt because he Acts in Faith That is he is resolved in his own Conscience that thus it behoveth him to act in the present Case and that it would be unreasonable or sinful to act otherwise So that let our Adversaries make the most of St. Paul's words that they can it is a very Illogical Inference to say That whoever Acts with a Doubt upon his Conscience in any Case is guilty of Sin and much more is it so to
affirm it in our present Case of Obeying Authority For it is certain that many Men are and I believe all Men may be satisfied that in a purely doubtful Case it is not only more reasonable but their Duty to Obey their Superiours Well But it will be said Do not we here talk contradictions Can a Man have Faith about an Action that is be resolved in his own Conscience that such an Action is to be done or may lawfully be done and yet Doubt concerning it at the same time I Answer This is so far from being a Contradiction that it is a Case that every day happens where a Man hath a Doubt on both sides as it is in the Instance before us A man often hath very great Doubts of the Lawfulness of this or the other Action when he considers the Action in general But yet when he comes to weigh the Circumstances he is in and the Reasons he hath in those Circumstances for the doing the Action he may be perswaded that it is better for him to do the Action than to let it alone notwithstanding all the Doubts he hath about it That is Though he doubt of the Lawfulness of the Action it self considered without his present Circumstances yet as it comes Circumstantiated to him he doth not doubt but it may be lawfully done by him But of this I have spoke largly before in my Explication of the Rule of a Doubting Conscience But is not all Doubting contrary to Faith I answer No it is not For such kind of Doubting as we here speak of doth we see very well consist with Faith My meaning is it is not necessary in order to a Mans having Faith about an Action that all his Doubts concerning that Action should be destroyed it is abundantly sufficient that they be over-ballanced That which I would say is this Whereever a man hath such a degree of Perswasion touching any Action he is deliberating about that he believes it more advisable to a reasonable man all things considered to do than Action than to forbear it such a man hath all the Faith that is needful to the doing that Action with a safe Conscience though in the mean time he may have such Doubts concerning that Action as will perhaps be too hard for him to resolve and will create him likewise some trouble and uneasiness in the doing of it Though indeed to speak properly I think these ought not any longer to be called Doubts after they are thus over-ruled or over-ballanced but rather to go under the Name and Notion of pure Scruples which the Casuists of all Perswasions do not only allow but advise that a man should act against In plain English That Doubtfulness about an Action which St. Paul speaks of and which he Censures as a sin was such a Doubtfulness as after the Action was done rendred the man Self-condemned his Conscience could not but reproach him for doing as he did But now in our Case the Man is not at all Self-condemned because he hath the Testimony of his Conscience that he hath acted according to the best of his Judgment and Discretion Though he acts with a Doubt yet he is satisfied he hath made the most reasonable Choice that he could in his Circumstances And whereever a man doth so he both acts in Faith and without any danger of Condemnation from his own Conscience So that after all the Bustle that is made about doing or forbearing an Action with a Doubting Conscience you see there is no great intricacy in the Case nor any necessity of sinning on both hands always supposing a man to be Sincere and Honest For if he be really so he will always do that which he judges most according to his Duty or at least that which he judges to be consistent with it and whereever a man doth thus it is certain he Acts with a safe Conscience notwithstanding any Doubt he may have about the Action Because more than the former a man cannot do and more than the latter he is not bound to do As for what sins an Erroneous Conscience may ingage a man in or what troublesome Reflections a Melancholly Imagination may occasion to him in these Cases I am not to answer for them they are of another Consideration IV. Having thus largly treated of the Nature of a Doubting Conscience and of the Rules by which a man is to Act whenever it happens and that both when he is left at his own Liberty and when he is under the the Commands of others All that remains to be done is to speak something about the Authority or Obligation of a Doubting Conscience which is our Fourth and last general Head But in truth the Discussion of this might very well be spared after what I have said relating to this Argument in several places of the foregoing Discourse particularly under my last Head However I shall endeavour to give some Account of this Point though I intend it a very short one because indeed what I have to offer is not so much any new matter as an Application of the Principles I have before laid down to our present purpose The Point in question is concerning the Authority of a Doubting Conscience Or Whether a Doubting Conscience doth bind at all and how far In answer to this I say in general It is certain that a Doubting Conscience of it self lays no Obligation at all upon a man any way Indeed it is a kind of Contradiction to suppose that it should For I pray What is the Notion of a Doubting Conscience but this That a man is uncertain or unresolved in his mind whether as to this particular Action he be bound or not bound To suppose now that a man is obliged in Conscience either way by vertue of this Doubt is plainly to suppose that a man takes himself to be bound while yet at the same time he is disputing with himself whether he be bound or no. To speak this plainer if I can Since Conscience as I have often said 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 or Forbidding them is the only Rule by which a man can judge what Actions are Duties and what are Sins and what are Indifferent It plainly follows that 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 or to Forbear any Action which he is not convinced in his Judgment that Gods Law hath some where or other Forbidden and so made a Sin And therefore since in a Case where a Man is purely Doubtful he cannot be supposed to have any such Convictions that the Law of God doth either Command or Forbid the Action Doubted of for if he had he would no longer Doubt It follows likewise by undeniable Consequence that a Mans Conscience
hath weight enough with a Wise man to turn the Ballance on that side and to make that which abstractedly considered was a Doubtful Case to be clear and plain when it comes clothed with such Circumstances As I gave Instances in the Case of Vsury and Law Suits And twenty more might be added to them if it was to any purpose If this now be admitted for Truth we have a plain Resolution of the Case before us and that is this There are so many great Advantages both to the Kingdom and to a mans self to be obtained by Worshiping God in the way of the Church and likewise so many both Publick and Private Mischiefs and Inconveniences that are consequent upon Separation That if in any Case these Considerations have weight enough to Over-ballance a simple Doubt about the Lawfulness of an Action they will certainly have sufficient weight in this Case And that man who is not swayed by them doth not Act so reasonably as he might do For my part I should think it very foolishly done of any man that so long as he is utterly uncertain whether he be in the right or in the wrong as every one that Doubteth is should be so confident of his Point as to venture upon it no less a stake than the Peace of the Kingdom where he lives and the Security of the Religion Established and withal his own Ease and Liberty and lastly the Fortunes also of his Posterity And yet such a wise Venture as this doth every one among us make that upon the account of a bare Doubt about the Lawfuless of the things enjoyned in our Communion doth persist in disobedience to the Government and Separation from the Church I wish this was well considered by our Doubting Dissenters They are wise enough as to the World in other matters it is to be desired that they would be as wise in this And if they were I dare say it would not at all prejudice their Wisdom as to the other World It will be but little either to their Comfort or their Reputation at the long run to have it said of them that besides the Disturbance they have all along occasioned to the Publick Peace and Vnity they have also brought their Estates and Families into danger of Ruine by the just Prosecutions of Law they have drawn upon themselves and all this for the sake of a Cause which they themselves must confess they are altogether uncertain and unresolved about But this will appear much clearer when we have set the Doubt about Conformity upon the right Foot viz. Considered it as a Double Doubt as indeed it is in its own Nature Which I come now to do In the Second place There are other Dissenters who as they have good reason do Doubt on both sides of this Question As they Doubt on one hand whether it be not a sin to Conform to our Worship because there are several things in it which they suspect to be unlawful So on the other hand they Doubt whether it be not their Duty to Conform to it because the Laws of the Church and of the Land do require them so to do And of these as I said there are likewise two sorts Some perhaps are equally Doubtful whether the Terms of our Communion are Lawful or no and consequently must Doubt equally whether they be bound to Conform or no. Others Doubt unequally That is to say of the Two it appears more probable to them that our Communion is Sinful than that it is a Duty Now as to the first of these Cases The Answer is very short and it is this We have before proved by many Arguments that in a Case of a Pure Doubt about the Lawfulness of an Action where the Probabilities on both sides are pretty equal In that Case the Command of Authority doth always turn the Ballance on its own side so as that it is not only reasonable for the man to do that in Obedience to Authority of the Lawfulness of which he Doubteth but it is his Duty to do it he sins if he do not For this I refer my Reader to the Third General Head of this Discourse The only difficulty therefore is in the other Case where the Doubt is unequal And here the Case is this As the man apprehends himself in danger of sinning if he do not come to Church and obey the Laws So he apprehends himself in a greater danger of sinning if he do Because it doth appear more probable to him that our Communion is Sinful than that it is a Duty And a greater Probobility caeteris paribus is always to be chosen before a less But to this likewise we are ready provided of an Answer from the foregoing Discourse viz. That though it should be supposed that in such a Case as this where the Ballance is so far inclined one way the Authority of our Superiors alone will not have weight enough to cast it on its own side Yet in this Particular Case of Church Communion there are so many other Arguments to be drawn from the Consideration of the greater Sin and the more dreadful Consequences of disobeying the Laws than of obeying them as will with any Impartial Conscientious Man out-weigh all the Probabilities on the other side so long as they are not so great as to create a Perswasion and make it reasonable for him rather to Conform how strong soever his Doubt be about the Lawfulness of Conformity so long as it is but a Doubt than to continue in Separation Vide Third Proposition about a Double Doubt pag. 27. This is the Issue upon which we will try the Point before us and I refuse no indifferent Man that will but have the Patience to hear what we have to say to be Vmpire between us and our Dissenting Brethren as to this Controversie In the first place let us suppose and admit that the man who hath these Doubts and Suspicions about the Lawfulness of our Established Worship doth really Doubt on the true side and that he would indeed be a Transgressor of the Law of God if he should Conform to it But then it must be admitted likewise that That Law of God which forbids these things in dispute is wonderfully obscurely declared There are no direct Prohibitions either in the Law of Nature or the Book of God about those things that are now Contested so that the unlawfulness of them is only to be concluded from Consequences And those Consequences likewise are so obscure that the Catholick Church from Christs time till our Reformation was wholly ignorant of them For though it doth appear that either these or the like Usages have always been in the Church Yet it doth not appear in all that compass of Time either that any Particular Church ever condemned them as sinful Or indeed that any Particular Christian did ever Separate from the Church upon the Account of them And even at this Day these Consequences by which they are proved unlawful
or leave out of it till all Parties amongst us are satisfied which indeed can never be effected as it doth consist in our becoming more truly Christian in our Lives and Tempers They are our vicious Dispositions more than our different Apprehensions that keep us at such a distance Let the terms of Communion with the Church be what they will yet as long as Men retain the same quarrelsom Mind and industriously seek for Doubts and Scruples and are glad to find them and prefer their own private Opinion and Judgment before the Wisdom and Authority of all their Governours whether Civil or Ecclesiastical it is plain our Divisions and Animosities will not cannot cease But this leads me to the last thing I design'd to discourse of which was to propound to you the best ways and means by which men may get rid of and ease their Minds of such Scruples where I shall especially consider those that relate to our communicating with our Parish-Churches You must not expect that I should descend to and answer the particular Exceptions which hinder men from constant Communion with us but only in general I shall crave leave to advise some few things which would mightily tend to the removing those Doubts and Scruples that yet detain so many in a state of utter Separation from us or at least discourage their total and hearty joyning with us Which charitable Design and Attempt however unsuccessful I may be in it yet cannot I hope be unacceptable to any whose Consciences are pester'd with such Scruples since I endeavour only to deliver them from those Mistakes which beside the disservice they do to Religion and the Protestant Interest do also expose them to trouble and danger from the Publick Laws and Civil Magistrate Of many Rules that might be given in this case I shall insist only on these following 1. We should take great care to beget and cherish in our Minds the most high and worthy and honourable Thoughts of God Almighty This is the Foundation of all Religion and as our Apprehensions of God are such for the most part will be his Worship and Service Accordingly as we conceive of his Nature so shall we judge what things are most pleasing to him as also what they are that are most offensive and distastful to him Now consider I beseech you Can that Man have becoming and excellent Thoughts of the Divine Nature who imagines that God regards any particular Gestures Habits and Postures so far as that the acceptance of our Service and Worship should depend upon such Circumstances of our Religious Actions When with all Humility and true devotion of Heart a sincere Christian prostrates himself at the Throne of God's Grace and with earnest Desire and Affections begs those good things that are according to Gods Mind and Will can we believe that the Father of our Spirits shall refuse and reject his Petition because it is delivered in a certain prescribed form of Words Shall his importunate renewed Requests fail of Success because he still useth the same Expressions and reads his Prayers out of a Book Is God pleased with variety of Words or the copiousness of our Invention or the elegancy of our Phrase and Stile Is it not the Heart and inward frame of Spirit that God principally respects in all our Prayers Or can we think so meanly of God that he should shut his ears against the united Prayers of his People because offended at the colour of the Garment in which the Minister officiates Suppose two Persons both with equal Preparation with true Repentance and Faith to approach the Lord's Table one of them out of a deep sense of his Unworthiness to receive so great Blessings and out of a grateful acknowledgment of the Benefits therein conferr'd upon him takes the Sacrament upon his Knees in the humblest Posture the other sitting or standing can you think that the Sacrament is effectual or beneficial or that God blesses it only to him that sits or that it would not have been of the same advantage to him if he also had received it kneeling To surmise any such thing is surely to dishonour God as if he were a low poor humoursome Being like a Father that should disinherit his Child tho in all Respects most dutiful to him and every way deserving his greatest Kindness only because he did not like his Complexion or the colour of his Hair The wiser and greater any Person is to whom we address our selves the less he will stand upon little Punctilio's Under the Jewish Law the minutest circumstances of Worship were exactly described and determined by God himself and it was not ordinarily lawful for the Priests at all to vary from them But it was necessary then that it should be thus because the Jewish Worship was typical of what was to come hereafter and those many nice Observances that were appointed were not commanded for themselves as if there were any Excellency in them but they were shadows of things to come which are all now done away by the Gospel and the bringing in of everlasting Righteousness the only thing always pleasing to God and agreeable to his Nature It is a spiritual rational Service God now expects from us and delights in and he must look upon God as a very fond and captious Being who can perswade himself that our Prayers and Thanksgivings and other Acts of Worship tho we be most hearty and devout in them yet shall be rejected by him only because of some particular Habits or Gestures we used which were neither dishonourable to God nor unsutable to the nature of those religious Performances Such mean Thoughts of God are the true ground of all Superstition when we think to court and please him by making great Conscience about little things and so it hath been truly observed that there is far more Superstition in conscientious abstaining from that which God hath no where forbid than there is in doing that which God hath not commanded A man may certainly do what God hath not commanded and yet never think to flatter God by it nor place any Religion in it but he may do it only out of obedience to his Superiours for outward Order and Decency for which end our Ceremonies are appointed and so there is no Superstition in them But now a Man cannot out of Conscience refuse to do what God hath not forbid and is by lawful Authority required of him but he must think to please God by such abstaining and in this conceit of pleasing or humouring God by indifferent things consists the true Spirit of Superstition 2. Lay out your great care and zeal about the necessary and substantial duties of Religion and this will make you less concerned about things of an inferiour and indifferent nature As on the one hand our fierce Disputes and Debates about little things and circumstances are apt to eat out the Heart and Life of Religion so on the other side minding those things most in
of it But for their sakes who may not have that Book by them I shall add out of it another answer which I think may satisfie a Reasonable Man Supposing then that the Evangelists did not relate the Matter Summarily but as distinctly as the Words were spoken by our Saviour Yet 2. Our Saviour also Commanded his Disciples Mat. 28. 19. to teach all Nations Baptizing them in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost But will any Christian think it hence deducible That where divers Persons or great numbers are to be Baptized together the Solemn Words of Baptizing them in the Name of the Father of the Son and of the Holy Ghost may not lawfully be expressed severally to every Person And if the Baptismal Form of Words may be Solemnly and Suitably to that Sacrament applied to every Person Baptized by the General acknowledgment of all Christians there can be no Reason why the like may not be allowed in the Lord's Supper Wherefore the Practice of our Church herein is no way unsuitable to the Institution of Christ or the Nature of the Sacrament and the Alteration of it would be for the worse and to the abating the Solemnity of its Administration Lib. Eccl. p. 224. There remains but two more particular Exceptions which I think needful to take notice of and those are in the Office of Baptism And the first I mean is 1. That all Baptized Infants are supposed to be Regenerated of which as some say we cannot be certain But I desire those that say so to consider if the Scripture does not attribute to Baptism as much as the Liturgie does We are said by Baptism to be made Members of Christ's Body By one Spirit we are all Baptized into one Body 1 Cor. 12. 13. And to be Baptized into Christ and to put on Christ Gal. 3. 27. and he that is in Christ is a new creature And to be Baptized for the Remission of sins Acts 2. 38. Baptism is also called the washing of Regeneration Tit. 3. 5. Now if it be made a Question Whether Infants are Regenerated in Baptism the Question at last must come to this Whether they are Qualified to become Members of Christs Body to be admitted into God's Covenant to receive Pardon of Original Sin and to become New Creatures gaining that State by Grace which they could not have by Nature And I do not see that any but Anabaptists can deny this For they that contend as we do that Infants are capable of Baptism must not deny them to be qualified for this Grace of Baptism unless they will make the Ordinance and Promises of God to be of none effect towards them Now if Infants do by Baptism gain Remission of Sin and are made Members of Christ they are Regenerated and Born anew If they do not gain this by it what does their Baptism signifie Or what benefit can they be supposed to have by it if they die in their Infancy more than if they had not been Baptiz'd at all This is the only means of Salvation they can have And those expressions of the Scripture above recited with many more will justifie our Church which supposes that this means will be effectual so long as they are capable of none other and therefore ought to be considered by those that make it to be of none effect I shall only add That this had been thought a strange Question in the Ancient Church Whether Infants were Regenerated by Baptism when the Pelagians whose cause led them to deny it yet durst not do it directly because they knew it would not be endured and therefore they confessed that Infants were to be Baptiz'd to qualifie them for the Kingdom of Heaven but not for the Remission of Sin So that they themselves seemed to acknowledge the saving effect of Baptism to Infants though as St. Austin often shewed them they contradicted themselves by so doing But they durst do no otherwise because the Doctrine of the Church was so plainly against them in this matter and every Believer was so settled in it that I remember St. Austin somewhere speaks to this purpose that the Pelagians would have come to the point and denied that the Baptism of Infants signified any thing at all to their Salvation and therefore might be as well let alone but that they were afraid the Mothers themselves of those Children would every where reproach them for it The other Objection against the Office of Baptism is this That the Godfathers and Godmothers that answer for Infants are not their Parents or Guardians but others who have they say no Authority to Covenant or Act in their Names In answer to whih I shall omit several things that might be said and content my self with these two things which I think may be sufficient 1. That in all cases where the Sureties are procured by the Parents there they have Authority to Covenant in behalf of the Infant and this the Objectors must grant I think upon their own Principles since they contend that Parents or Pro-parents are fittest to act in behalf of the Baptized Infants as having Authority so to do since they have the Power to dispose of their Education afterward For then the Sureties which are by them prevailed with to stand for their Children have at least all that Authority which the Parents can give them And this is sufficiently known to be the case with us And this is that which the Church might well suppose viz. that the Sureties which contract with the Church in the Infants Name would be procured by the Parents so that the Parents Contracting in behalf of the Infant is included in the Undertaking of the Sureties who although they are required by the Church to answer for the Infant yet are they supposed to be Authoriz'd by its Parents also so to do 2. The good Design of this Order and Appointment in the Church ought to be considered which is not the less for the fault of Men and the looseness of these times does often defeat it For hereby the Church taketh greater security that the Infant shall be brought up in the Knowledge and Practice of that Holy Covenant into which it is Baptiz'd In as much as besides the care of the Parents which is in effect promised and may be more reasonably rely'd upon without their own Solemn Act upon the account of that Natural Affection which makes them particularly concerned besides this I say there is a Particular Obligation laid upon others also to see that the Infant be so Educated as much as in them lies In case the Parents should die before the Child is grown to years of Discretion the Sureties are then more Particularly Obliged to look to their Godchild that he be put into a way of learning and doing his Duty If they should not die before but be remiss the Sureties have Authority to come to them and Admonish them of their Duty and to let them know
I believe those Prejudices of the Lay-Dissenters against the Common-Prayer which I have endeavoured to remove have wrought in them a greater a version to it than the best Divines of that way intended I should be very sorry to find my self mistaken in this And this consideration was some encouragement to me to give a true account of those things they seemed to dislike most of all Which I have endeavoured upon the plain grounds of Reason and Scripture almost wholly avoiding appeals to other Church Antiquity not but that great regard is to be had of it and that we can defend our selves by it but because they are very few in Comparison who are qualified to Examine this kind of Argument And the like I say of the Concurrence of other Reformed Churches with us in those things that are disliked As for the Sign of the Cross in Baptism it is pretended that this is a part of Worship or a Sacrament of Mans making The contrary to which has been so plainly shewn in late Discourses that unless I am called to give an account of it I cannot think fit to trouble you with this Dispute But I heartily desire our Brethren to consider at length that though the use of this Ceremony were not so easie to be defended as I think it is yet that it is no Condition of Communion because the People are not required to Sign with the Sign of the Cross but the Minister only As for Kneeling at the Communion of the Holy Table that is indeed every Communicants Act but of this you may expect a Discourse from another Hand which I hope will give satisfaction to all Sober Persons that are yet unsatisfied about it And now I intreat all those of the Dissenting Party into whose hands these Papers shall fall that they would seriously consider whether it be fit to venture the Guilt of Schism and the sad Consequences of it likely to come to pass upon such grounds as these Let us at length consult for the Honour of this Age with Posterity who will stand amazed to find a Separation of Protestants from this Church carried on so long upon so little occasion given and such weak Objections so strongly insisted upon as to build an opposite Communion upon them Let us Consult the Honour and the Safety of the Reformation and no longer suffer it to be exposed to scorn and dnager to be Laught at and Disgraced by the Papists our dangerous Enemies always but never more dangerous than now If the Dissenters are not yet convinced that the wide breach they have made in the Communion of Protestants will certainly let in Popery if it be not prevented by a timely closing with the Church of England Nothing remains but to wait till they are convinced by the last Extremity I can take no comfort in being assured that at last they will believe it when alas it will be to no purpose to believe it I beseech them to consider whether we are likely to be united in any other Communion but that of the Church of England as it is by Law Established and whether so little account ought to be made of Law and Authority as to say that our Governours may as well come down to them by forbearing to require what they dislike as they come up to the Law by doing what it requires Will our case bear this wantonness Will such Expressions consist with our Duty I beseech them by what is most dear to them by the Honour of God and the Love of Christ and the Care of their own Souls and the Charity they have for the Souls of other Men that they will take pains with themselves to lay aside Prejudice and Anger and all Passions that obstruct a clear Judgment of things that have been disputed amongst us and that they would consider impartially what we have said as in the sight of God who knoweth the Hearts of Men. Can they propound to themselves more beneficial Designs than to check the Prophaneness and Atheism which in this last Age hath been so much complained of than to restore in some measure the Ancient Discipline of the Church for the excluding of vicious Men from the Communion of the Faithful than to transmit the Profession of the true Religion Establisht among us down to their Posterity The most effectual means by which they can contribute to all those good Ends is to return heartily and unanimously to the Communion of the Church of England all the true Sons whereof are ready to receive them with open Arms with joy and thankfulness to God and to them for the good they will do us and themselves by it But as for them that for Worldly and Corrupt Interests encourage and support the present Separation from this Church I cannot expostulate with them in this manner since such Men have not the fear of God before them and 't is impossible they should be touched with tenderness for the Concerns of Religion while they continue as they are All I shall say to them is That when that great day of Judgment comes which they of all Men have most reason to be afraid of then all the dismal Consequences of this Schism which are likely to happen will be fully required at their hands to be sure whilst those that in meer Ignorance and Mistake have contributed to them shall have an easier Account to give especially if they have taken pains to inform themselves better What good Effect our Applications to Men will have we cannot say but if it shall appear that they are not yet prepared for Instruction we have the more reason to turn our selves to God by earnest Prayer that he would please to open the Understandings of the simple and to detect the ill Designs of dishonest Men and to enable us to bring forth more and better Fruits of Repentance that whatever happens to this Church it may not be forsaken of his Favour and Protection Amen FINIS THE RESOLUTION OF THIS CASE OF CONSCIENCE Whether the Church of England's Symbolizing so far as it doth with the Church of Rome makes it Unlawful to hold Communion with the Church of England The Second EDITION LONDON Printed for Fincham Gardiner at the White-Horse in Ludgate-street 1683. The Case Whether the Church of Englands Symbolizing so far as it doth with the Church of Rome makes Communion therewith Vnlawful IN speaking to this Case we will First Premise that there is a wide and vast distance betwixt the Church of England and that of Rome Secondly Shew that a Churches Symbolizing or agreeing in some things with the Church of Rome is no Warrant for Separation from the Church so agreeing Thirdly Shew that the Agreement that is between the Church of England and the Church of Rome is in no wise such as will make Communion with the Church of England Unlawful First We think it necessary to Premise that there is a wide and vast distance betwixt the Church of England and that
Subjects more lov'd commanding equally Bowels and Affections and Duty and Honour Masters and Servants Husbands and Wives and all Relations are kept in their just Bounds and Priviledges With other Churches we make good Works necessary to Salvation but think our selves more modest and secure in taking away Arrogance and Merit and advancing the Grace of Christ With other Men we cry up Faith but not an hungry and a starved one but what is fruitful of good Works and so have all that others contend for with greater modesty and security 3. How fitly this Church is constituted to excite true Devotion When we make our Addresses unto God we ought to have worthy and reverend Conceptions of his Nature a true sense and plain knowledge of the Duty and of the Wants and Necessities for which we pray to be suppli'd All which our Church to help our Devotion plainly sets down describing God by all his Attributes of just wise and laying forth the Vices and Infirmities of Humane Nature and that none else but God can cure our needs When her Sons are to pray the matter of her Petitions are not nice and controverted trivial or words of a Party but plain and substantial wherein all agree Her Words in Prayer are neither rustick nor gay the whole Composure neither too tedious nor too short decently order'd to help our Memories and wandring Thoughts Responsals and short Collects in Publick Devotion are so far from being her fault that they are her beauty and prudence There are few Cases and Conditions of Humane Life whether of a Civil or Spiritual Nature which have not their proper Prayers and particular Petitions for them at least as is proper for publick Devotions When we return our Thanks we have proper Offices to enflame our Passions to quicken our Resentment to excite our Love and to confirm our future Obedience the best instance of gratitude When we Commemorate the Passion of Christ we have a Service fit to move our Affections to assist our Faith to enlarge our Charity to shew forth and exhibit Christ and all his bloudy Sufferings every way to qualifie us to discharge that great Duty She hath indeed nothing to kindle an Enthusiastick heat nor any thing that savours of Raptures and Extasies which commonly flow from temper or fraud but that which makes us manly devout our Judgment still guiding our Affections When we enter first into Religion and go out of the World we have two proper Offices Baptism and Burial full of Devotion to attend those purposes So that if any doth not pray and give thanks communicate and live like a Christian 't is not because the Services to promote these are too plain and hungry beggarly and mean but their own mind is not fitly qualifi'd before they use them bring but an honest mind to these parts of Devotion a true sense of God sober and good purposes and affections well disposed that which is plain will prove Seraphical improve our Judgment heighten our Passions and make the Church a Quire of Angels Without which good disposition our Devotion is but Constitution or melancholy Peevishness Sullenness or Devotion to a Party a Sacrifice that God will not acccept 4. Her Order and Discipline Such are the Capacities and Manners of Men not to be taught onely by naked Vertue a natural Judgment or an immediate Teaching of God but by Ministry and Discipline decent Ceremonies and Constitutions and other external Methods these are the outward Pales and Guards the Supplies and Helps for the Weakness of Humane Nature Our Church hath fitted and ordered these so well as neither to want or to abound not to make Religion too gay nor leave her slovingly neither rude nor phantastick but is cloth'd in Dresses proper to a manly Religion not to please or gratifie our senses so as to fix there but to serve the reason and judgment of our Mind There are none of our Ceremonies which good Men and wise Men have not judged decent and serviceable to the great ends of Religion and none of them but derive themselves from a very ancient Family being us'd in most Ages and most of the Churches of God and have decency antiquity and usefulness to plead for them to help our Memories to excite our Affections to render our Services orderly and comely Were we indeed all Soul and such Seraphical Saints and grown Men as we make our selves we might then plead against such external helps but when we have Natures of weakness and passion these outward helps may be call'd very convenient if not generally necessary and as our Nature is mixt of Soul and Body so must always our Devotion be here and such God expects and is pleas'd with Our Church is neither defective in Power and Discipline had she her just dues and others would do well to joyn with her in her wishes that they might be restor'd which would turn all into Confusion nor yet tyrannical want of Authority breeding as many if not more Miseries than Tyranny or too much Power both of them severe Curses of a Nation But her Government like her Clime is so well temper'd together that the Members of this Christian Society may not be dissolute or rude with her nor her Rulers insolent being constituted in the Church with their different Names and Titles not for lustre and greatness and Secular purposes but for suppression of Vice the maintaining of Faith Peace Order and all Virtues the true Edification of Mens Souls And if those Vices are not reprov'd and chastized which fall under her Cognizance 't is not the fault of her Power but because by other ways ill restrain'd unnecessary Divisions from her hindring her Discipline upon Offenders and so they hinder that Edification which thy contend for This Government is not Modern Particular or purely Humane but Apostolical Primitive and Universal to time as well as place till some private Persons for Number Learning or Piety not to be equall'd to the good Men of old who defended it and obey'd it and suffer'd for it out of some mistakes of Humane frailty and passion or born down with the iniquities of the times began to change it and declaim against it though so very fit and proper to promote Christianity in the World This is a general account of that Edification that is to be had in that Church in which we live a more particular one would be too long for this Discourse but thus much must be said that examine all her particular Parts and Offices you will find none of them light or superstitious novel or too numerous ill dispos'd or uncouth improper or burthensome no just cause for any to revolt from her Communion but considering the present circumstances of Christianity and Men the best constituted Church in the World If therefore Edification be going on to Perfection Heb. 6. 1. 2 Pet. 3. 18. Rom. 15. 2. 1 Cor. 14. 3. or growing in Grace if it is doing good to the Souls of
have been heretofore written in defence of our Church her Rites and Usages that yet generally lie by the Walls little known and less read by those that so much Cry out against her And at this time how many excellent Discourses have been Published for the satisfaction of Dissenters written with the greatest Temper and Moderation with the utmost plainness and perspicuity with all imaginable evidence and strength of Reasoning so short as not to require any considerable portion either of Time or Cost so suited to present Circumstances as to obviate every material Objection that is made against Communion with us and yet there is just cause to fear that the far greatest part of our Dissenters are meer strangers to them and are not so just to themselves or us as to give them the reading And that those few that do look into them do it rather out of a design to pick quarrels against them and to expose them in scurrilous or cavilling Pamphlets than to receive satisfaction by them I do heartily and from my Soul wish an end of these Contentions and that there were no further occasion for them but if our Dissenting Brethren will still proceed in this way we desire and hope 't is but what is reasonable that the things in difference may be debated in the most quiet peaceable and amicable manner that they may be gravely and substantially managed and only the Merits of the Cause attended to and that the Controversie may not be turned off to mean and trifling Persons whose highest Attainment perhaps it is to write an idle and senseless Pamphlet and which can serve no other use but only that the People may be borne in hand that such and such Books are Answered Which is so unmanly and disingenious a way and so like the shifting Artifices of them of the Church of Rome that I am apt to persuade my self the wiser Heads of the Dissenting Party cannot but be ashamed of it If they be not 't is plain to all the World they are willing to serve an ill Design by the most unwarrantable Means But however that be we think we have great Reason to expect from them that they should hear our Church before they condemn Her and consider what has been said for the removing of their Doubts before they tell us any more of Scruples Tender-Consciences and the hard measure that they meet withall I confess could I meet with a Person that had brought himself to some kind of Unbyas'dness and indifferency of Temper and that design'd nothing more than to seek and find the right way of Serving God without respect to the Intrigues and Interests of this or that particular Party and in order thereunto had with a sincere and honest Mind read whatever might probably conduce to his Satisfaction fairly proposed his Scruples and modestly consulted with those that were most proper to advise him and humbly begged the Guidance and Direction of the Divine Grace and Blessing and yet after all should still labour under his old Dissatisfactions I should heartily pity and pray for such a Man and think my self obliged to improve all my Interest for Favour and Forbearance towards him But such Persons as these I am afraid are but thin sowed and without Breach of Charity it may be supposed there is not One of a Thousand III. Thirdly We desire that before they go on to accuse our Church with driving them into Separation they would directly charge her with imposing sinful terms of Communion And unless they do this and when they have done it make it good for barely to accuse I hope is not sufficient I see not which way they can possibly justifie their Separation from us 'T is upon this account that the whole Protestant Reformation defends their Departure from the Church of Rome They found the Doctrine of that Church infinitely corrupt in several of the main Principles of Religion New Articles of Faith introduced and bound upon the Consciences of Men under pain of Damnation its Worship overgrown with very gross Idolatry and Superstition its Rites and Ceremonies not only over-numerous but many of them advanced into proper and direct Acts of Worship and the use of them made necessary to Salvation and besides its Members required to joyn and communicate in these Corruptions and Depravations nay and all Proposals and Attempts towards a Reformation obstinately rejected and thrown out in which Case they did with great Reason and Justice depart from her which we may be confident they would not have done had no more been required of them than instead of Worshipping Images to use the Sign of the Cross in Baptism or instead of the Adoration of the Host to kneel at the Receiving of the Sacrament A Learned Amyrald de Secess ab Eccles Rom. pag. 233. Protestant Divine of great Name and Note has expresly told us That had there been no other Faults in the Church of Rome besides their useless Ceremonies in Baptisme and some other things that are beyond the measure and genius of the Christian Religion they had still continued in the Communion of that Church Indeed did the Church of England command any thing which Christ has prohibited or prohibit any thing which Christ has commanded then come ye out from among them and be ye separate saith the Lord were good Warrant and Authority But where do we meet with these prohibitions not in the word of God not in the nature and reason of the things themselves nor indeed do we find our Dissenting Brethren of late very forward to fasten this charge and much less to prove it whatever unwary sayings may fall from any of them in the heat and warmth of Disputation or be suggested by indirect consequences and artificial insinuations And if our Church commands nothing that renders her Communion sinful then certainly Separation from her must be unlawful because the Peace and Unity of the Church and obedience to the commands of lawful Authority are express and indispensable duties and a few private suspicions of the unlawfulness of the thing are not sufficient to sway against plain publick and necessary Duties nor can it be safe to reject Communicating with those with whom Christ himself does not refuse Communion This I am sure was once thought good Doctrine by the chiefest of our Dissenters who when time was reasoned thus against those that subdivided from them If we be a Church of Christ and Christ hold Communion with A Vindication of the Presbyterial Government 1649. p. 130. us why do you Separate from us If we be the Body of Christ do not they that Separate from the Body Separate from the Head also we are loath to speak any thing that may offend you yet we entreat you to consider that if the Apostle call those Divisions of the Church of Corinth wherein Christians did not separate into divers formed Congregations in the Sacrament of the Lords Supper Schisms 1 Cor. 1. 10. may not your
Church since the Apostles Times that had not its Rites and Ceremonies as many if not more in number and as liable to exception as those that are used in our Church at this Day nay there are few things if any at all required by our Constitution which were not in use in the best Ages of Christianity This were it my design I might demonstrate by an Induction of particulars but it is fully done by other Hands I shall therefore only as a Specimen instance in One and the rather because 't is so much boggled at viz. The Sign of the Cross in Baptism which we are sure was a Common and Customary Rite in the time of Tertullian and St. Cyprian the latter whereof says oft enough that being Regenerated Cypr. adv Demetr p. 203. de Vnit Eccl. p. 185. vid. de Laps p. 169. Bas. de Spir. S. c. 27. Tert. de Coron mil. c. 3. that is Baptized they were Signed with the Sign of Christ that they were Signed on their Foreheads wbo were thought worthy to be admitted into the fellowship of our Lords Religion And St. Basil plainly puts it amongst those Ancient Customs of the Church which had been derived from the Apostles Nay Tertullian assures us that they used it in the most common Actions of Life that upon every motion at their going out and coming in at their going to Bath or to Bed or to Meals or whatever their Occasions called them to they were wont to make the Sign of the Cross on their Fore-heads and therefore 't is no wonder that they should never omit it in the most Solemn Act of their being initiated into the Christian Faith And now let our Dissenting-Brethren seriously reflect whether the Constant and Uniform Practice of the Church in all times be not a mighty Testimony against their Separating from us upon the account of those things which were used in the wisest best and happiest Ages of the Gospel and when their Separation upon this account can in point of Example pretend not to much more than a Hundred Years Countenance and Authority to Support and Shelter it And yet it has not that neither for I could easily shew that most if not all the Usages of our Church are either practised in Foreign See Durels view of the Government and publick worship of God 1662. Churches or at least allowed of by the most Learned and Eminent Divines of the Reformation whose Testimonies to this purpose are particularly enumerated and ranked under their proper Heads by Mr. Sprint in his * * * p. 123 124 c. Cassander Anglicanus which they that are curious may Consult VI. Sixthly We beg that those who by their Conformity have declared that they can close with our Communion would still continue in the Communiâ—n of our Church This is a Request so reasonable that I hope it cannot fairly be denied Whatever Dissaâ—tsfactions others may alledge to keep them at a distance from us these Men can have nothing to pretend having actually shewed that they can do it For I am not willing to think that herein such Men acted against their Consciences or did it meerly to secure a gainful Office or a place of Trust or to escape the Lash and Penalty of the Law These are Ends so very Vile and Sordid so Horrible a prostitution of the Holy Sacrament the most Venerable Mystery of our Religion so deliberate a way of Sinning even in the most Solemn Acts of Worship that I can hardly suspect any should be guilty of it but Men of Proflâ—gate and Atheistical Mindâ— who have put off all Sence of God and Banished all Reverence of Religion I would fain belâ—eve that when any of our Brethren receive the Sacrament with us they are fully persuaded of the lawfulness of it and that the Principle that brings them thither is the Conscience of their Duty But then I know not how to Answer it why the same Principle that brings them thither at one time should not bring them also at another and that we should never have their company at that Solemn and Sacred Ordinance but when the fear of some Temporal Punishment or the prospect of some Secular Advantage prompts them to it 'T is commonly blamed in those of the Romish Church that they can dispence with Oaths and receive Sacraments to serve a turn and to advance the Interest of their Cause But God forbid that so heavy a Charge should ever lie at the Doors of Protestants and especially those who would be thought most to abhor Popish Practices and who would take it ill to be accounted not to make as much if not more Conscience of their ways than other Men. Now I beseech our Dissenting or rather Inconstant Brethren to reason a little if our Communion be sinful why did they enter into it if it be lawful why do they forsake it is it not that which the Commands of Authority have tied upon us and whose Commands we are bound to submit to not only for Wrath but for Conscience sake Are not the Peace and Unity of the Church things that ought greatly to sway with all Sober Humble and Considering Christians Does not the Apostle say that if it be possible and as muâ—â— as in us lies we are to live Peaceably with all Men And shall Peace be broken only in the Church where it ought to be kept most entire And that by those who acknowledge it to be possible and within their power Are they satisfied in their Consciences to join in Communion with us and will they not do it for the sake of the Church of God Or will they refuse to do what is lawful and as the Case stands necessary in order to Peace only because Authority Commands it and has made it their Duty Oh Sirs I beseech you by all that 's Dear and Sacred to assist and help us and not strengthen the Hands of those who by a Causeless and Unjustifiable Separation endeavour to rend and destroy the best Church in the whole Christian World VII Seventhly We beg of them that they would Consider what Sad and Deplorable Mischiefs have ensued upon bearing down the Constitution of the Church of England This is matter of Fact and whereof many yet alive were made sensible by Woful Experience Omitting what may seem of a little more remote Consideration the Blood and Treasure the Spoils and Ravages of the late War the Enslaving and Oppressing all Ranks of Men and what is above all the Murder of an excellent and incomparable Prince I shall instance in a few particulars which were the more immediate Effects of it And First No sooner was the Church of England thrown down but what Monstrous Swarms of Errours and Heresies broke in upon us both for Number and Impiety beyond whatever had been heard â—f in the Church of God And here I need go no further than the sad account which Mr. Edwards has given us in the several parts of his Gangraena
Questions besides that it cannot serve any purposes of piety if it declines from duty in any instance it is like giving Alms out of the portion of Orphans or building Hospitals with the Money and spoils of Sacrilege 4. It is further said by Mr. Jeans out of Amesius If determination by Superiours is sufficient to take away the sin of Scandal then they do very ill that they do not so far as is possible determine all things indifferent that so no danger may be left of giving Offence by the use of them Then the Church of Rome is to be praised in that she hath determined so many indifferent things Then St. Paul might have spared all his directions about forbearance out of respect to weak Brethren and fully determined the matters in debate and so put an end to all fear of Scandal This truly seemeth a very odd way of arguing and all that I shall say to it is that it supposeth nothing else worthy to be considered in the making of Laws or in the determinations of Superiours about indifferent things but only this one matter of Scandal and the project it self should it take would prove very vain and unsuccessful For tho we truly say that we are bound to comply with the Orders and Ceremonies of the Church of England they being but few and innocent and so giving no real ground of Offence yet we do not say the same upon supposition our Church had determined all circumstances in Gods Worship she possibly could which would perhaps have been a yoke greater than that of the Ceremonial Law to the Jews nor if she had prescribed as many Ceremonies as the Church of Rome hath done which manifestly tend to the disgrace and Scandal of our Christian Religion and as for the course St. Paul took it is plain that some things upon good reasons were determined by the Apostles as that the Gentile Converts should abstain from blood and things strangled and offered to Idols which decree I presume they might not Transgress out of charity to any of their Brethren who might take Offence at such abstinence and other things for great reason were for a time left at liberty which reason was taken from the present circumstances of those the Apostles had to deal withal tho afterwards as I observed before when that reason ceased determinations were made about those things which St. Paul had left at liberty and if St. Paul had determined the dispute about meats and days one way they who had followed so great an Authority whatever had happened had surely been free from the sin of Scandal but still the Scandal had not been prevented but all the contrary part had been in danger to have been utterly estranged from Christianity and that was reason sufficient why St. Paul did not make any determinations in that case For Governours are not only to take care to free those that obey them from the sin of Scandal but also to provide that as little occasion as is possible may be given to any to be Scandalized There are other Objections offered by Mr. Jeans out of Amesius and Rutherford against this Doctrine of our obligation to obedience to Superiours in things lawful notwithstanding the Scandal that may follow but they either may be Answered from what I have already said or else they chiefly concern the case of Governours and are brought to prove that they act uncharitably and give great Offence contrary to St. Pauls rules who take upon them determinately to impose unnecessary rites by which they know many good Men will be Scandalized but this is not my present business to discourse of tho I cannot forbear saying these two things which I think very easie to make out 1. That our Church of England hath taken all reasonable care not to give any just offence to any sort of persons and the offences that have been since taken at some things in our Constitution could not possibly have been foreseen by those who made our first Reformation from Popery and so they could not be any reason against the first establishment Nor 2. Are they now a sufficient reason for the alteration of it unless we can imagine it reasonable to alter publick Laws made with great wisdom and deliberation as often as they are disliked by or prove Offensive to private persons If this be admitted there then can never be any setled Government and order in the Church because there never can be any establishment that will not be lyable to give such Offence They who now take Offence at what the Church of England enjoyns on the same or a like account will take Offence at whatever can be enjoyned and the same pretences of Scandal will be good against any establishment they themselves shall make for tho they will not use these reasons against their own establishment yet in a short time others will take up their weapons to fight against them and what served to destroy the present Church will be as effectual to overthrow that which shall be set up in its room so that whatever alteration is made if this be allowed for a sufficient ground of it viz. to avoid the Offence that some men take at the present constitution yet still we shall be but where we were and new Offences will arise and so there must be continual changing and altering to gratifie the unreasonable humours and fancies of Men and should any one party of Dissenters amongst us get their Form of Government and Worship established by Law I doubt not but they would Preach to us the very same Doctrine we do now to them They would tell us that private persons must bend and conform to the Laws and not the Laws to private persons that it was our own fault that we were Offended that our weakness proceeded from our unwillingness to receive instruction that the weak were to be governed not to prescribe to their Governours that we must not expect that what was with good reason appointed and ordered should be presently abrogated or changed out of complyance with Mens foolish prejudices and mistakes It is sufficiently known how strict and rigorous botht the Presbyterians and Independents are and have been where they have had any advantage and what little consideration or regard they have had of their Dissenting Brethren tho they would have us so tender of them Thus much I think sufficient to shew that the Precept of Obedience to Superiours in things Lawful is more obligatory than the Precept of avoiding Scandal whence it follows that it is our duty to obey in such instances tho Offence may be taken at it because no sin is to be committed for the avoiding Scandal I might from this head further argue that if we must not commit any sin to avoid giving Offence then it is not Lawful to Separate from our Parish-Churches upon that account because all voluntary Separation from a Church in which nothing that is unlawful is required as a condition of