is a Rule of Conscience we are not only to understand the prime Heads and most general Dictates of it which are but a few but also all the necessary Deductions from those Heads And by the Law of Scripture as it is the Rule of Conscience we are not only to understand the express Commands and Prohibitions we meet with there in the letter of the Text but all the things likewise that by unavoidable Consequence do follow from those Commands or Prohibitions In a word when we are deliberating with our selves concerning the goodness or badness the Lawfulness or Unlawfulness of this or the other particular Action We are not only to look upon the letter of the Law but to attend further to what that Law may be supposed by a Rational Man to contain in it And if we be convinced that the Action we are deliberating about is Commanded or Forbidden by direct Inference or by Parity of Reason we ought to look upon it as a Duty or a Sin though it be not expresly Commanded or Forbidden by the Law in the letter of it And if neither by the letter of the Law nor by Consequence from it nor by Parity of Reason the Action before us appear either to be Commanded or Forbidden In that Case we are to look upon it as an indifferent Action which we may do or let alone with a safe Conscience or to express the thing more properly we are to look upon it as an Action in which our Conscience is not so much concerned as our Prudence III. Having thus given an account of the Rule of Conscience that which Naturally follows next to be considered with Reference to our present design is what share Humane Laws have in this Rule of Conscience whether they be a part of this Rule and do really bind a Mans Conscience to the Observance of them or no which is our Third general Head Now as to this our Answer is that though the Laws of God be the great and indeed the only Rule of Conscience yet the Laws of Men generally speaking do also bind the Conscience and are a part of its Rule in a Secondary Sense that is by Vertue of and in Subordination to the Laws of God I shall briefly explain the meaning of this in the Four following Propositions First there is nothing more certain than that the Law of God as it is declared both by Nature and Scripture doth Command us to Obey the Laws of Men. There is no one Dictate of Nature more Obvious to us than this that we are to Obey the Government we Live under in all honest and Just things For this is indeed the Principal Law and Foundation of all Society And it would be impossible either for Kingdoms or States for Citys or Families to subsist or at least to maintain themselves in any Tolerable degree of Peace and Happiness if this be not acknowledged a Duty And then as for the Laws of God in Scripture there is nothing more plainly declared there than that it is Gods Will and our Duty to Obey them that have the Rule over us and to Submit our selves to every Ordinance of Man for the Lords sake and to be Subject not only for Wrath but for Conscience sake So that no Man can doubt that he is really bound in Duty to Obey the Laws of Men that are made by Just and Sufficient Authority And Consequently no Man can doubt that Humane Laws do really bind the Conscience and are one part of the Rule by which it is to be directed and Governed But then having said this we add this farther in the Second Place that Humane Laws do not bind the Conscience by any Vertue in themselves but meerly by Vertue of Gods Law who has Commanded that we should in all things be Subject to our Lawful Governours not only for Wrath but for Conscience sake Conscience is not properly concerned with any Being in the World save God alone it hath no Superiour but him For the very Notion of it as I have often said is no other than our Judgment of what things we are bound to do by Gods Law what things we are Forbidden to do by Gods Law So that all the Men in the World cannot bind any Mans Conscience by Vertue of any Power or Authority that is in them But now God having made it an everlasting Law both by Nature and Scripture that we should Obey those who are set over us whether they be our Parents or our Masters and much more our Princes and the Soveraign Legislative Power under whom we Live by Vertue of this Command of God and this only we are for ever bound in Conscience to Govern our Actions by the Commands that they impose upon us and those Commands of theirs are a Rule though a Consequential or a Secondary Rule by which we are to Govern our Conscience because they are the Instances of our Obedience to the Laws of God But then in the Third Place this is also to be remembered that Humane Laws do no farther bind the Conscience and are a Rule of it than as they are agreeable to the Laws of God If any Law or Command of Man do Clash with any Law of God that is if it be either Evil in it self or Contradictory to the Duty of Christians as laid down in the Scriptures in that Case that Law or Command by what Humane Authority soever it was made or given doth not bind our Conscience nor is any Rule of our Actions On the contrary we are not at any Rate to yield Obedience to it but we are here reduced to the Apostles Case and must Act as they did that is we must Obey God rather than Men and we Sin if we do not For since God only hath proper and direct Authority over our Conscience and Humane Power only by Delegation from him And since God hath not given any Commission to the most Soveraign Princes upon Earth to alter his Laws or to impose any thing upon his Subjects that is inconsistent with them It follows by necessary Consequence that no Man can be Obliged to Obey any Laws of Men farther than they are agreeable to and consistent with the Laws of God There is yet a Fourth thing necessary to be taken in for the clearing the Point we are upon and that is this That though Humane Laws generally speaking may be said to bind the Conscience and to be a part of its Rule Yet we do not Assert that every Humane Law though it doth not interfere with any of Gods Laws doth at all times and in all Cases Oblige Every Mans Conscience to Active Obedience to it so as that he Sins against God if he Transgress it No it would be a very hard thing to affirm this and I do not know what Manamong us upon these Terms would be Innocent Thus much I believe we may safely lay down as a Truth That where either the Matter of the Law is of such a Nature
is properly no Conscience unless by Accident we have nothing here to do with them but shall reserve them to another place Here we suppose that we do make a Judgment of the thing that is we are perswaded in our Minds concerning the goodness or badness of this or the other Action And that which we are to inquire into is how far that Judgment binds us to Act according to it Now if our Conscience be a Right Conscience that is if we have truly informed our Judgment according to the Rule of Gods Law It is beyond all Question and acknowledged by all the World that we are in that Case perpetually bound to Act according to our Judgment It is for ever our Duty so to do and there can no blame no guilt fall upon us for so doing let the Consequence of our Acting or not Acting be what it will So that as to a Right Conscience or a well informed Judgment there is no dispute among any sort of Men. But the great thing to be inquired into is what Obligation a Man is under to Act according to his Judgment supposing it be false supposing he hath not rightly informed his Conscience but hath taken up false measures of what God hath Commanded or Forbidden Now for the Resolution of this I lay down these Three Propositions which I think will take in all that is needful for the giving Satisfaction to every one concerning this point First Where a Man is mistaken in his Judgment even in that Case it is always a Sin to Act against it Be our Conscience never so ill instructed as to what is Good or Evil though we should take that for a Duty which is really a Sin and on the contrary that for a Sin which is really a Duty Yet so long as we are thus persuaded it will be highly Criminal in us to Act in contradiction to this persuasion and the reason of this is evident because by so doing we wilfully Act against the best light which at present we have for the direction of our Actions and consequently our Will is as faulty and as wicked in consenting to such Actions as if we had had truer Notions of things We are to remember that the Rule of our Duty whatever it be in it self cannot touch or affect our Actions but by the Mediation of our Conscience that is no farther than as it is apprehended by us or as we do understand and remember it So that when all is done the immediate Guide of our Actions can be nothing but our Conscience our Judgment and Perswasion concerning the Goodness or Badness or Indifferency of things It is true in all those Instances where we are mistaken our Conscience proves but a very bad and unsafe Guide because it hath it self lost its way in not following its Rule as it should have done But however our Guide still it is and we have no other guide of our Actions but that And if we may lawfully refuse to be guided by it in one Instance we may with as much reason reject its Guidance in all What is the Notion that any of us hath of a Wilful Sin or a Sin against Knowledg but this That we have done otherwise than we were convinced to be our Duty at the same time that we did so And what other measures have we of any Mans Sincerity or Hypocrisie But only this that he Acts according to the best of his Judgment or that he doth not Act according to what he pretends to Believe We do not indeed say that every one is a good Man that Acts according to his Judgment or that he is to be commended for all Actions that are done in pursuance of his Perswasion No we measure Vertue and Vice by the Rule according to which a Man ought to Act as well as by the Mans intention in Acting But however we all agree that that Man is a Knave that in any instance Acts contrary to that which he took to be his duty And in passing this Sentence we have no regard to this whether the Man was Right or mistaken in his Judgment for be his Judgment Right or Wrong True or False it is all one as to his Honesty in Acting or not Acting according to it He that hath a false perswasion of things so long as that perswasion continues is often as well satisfied that he is in the Right as if his Perswasion was true That is he is oftentimes as Confident when he is in an Error as when he is in the Right And therefore we cannot but conclude that he who being under a mistake will be tempted to Act contrary to his Judgment would certainly upon the same Temptation Act contrary to it was his Judgment never so well informed And therefore his Will being as bad in the one Case as in the other he is equally a Sinner as to the Wilfulness of the Crime tho indeed in other respects there will be a great difference in the Cases This I believe is the Sense of all Men in this matter If a Man for instance should of a Jew become a Christian while yet in his Heart he believeth that the Messiah is not yet come and that our Lord Jesus was an Impostor Or if a Papist should to serve some private ends Renounce the Communion of the Roman Church and joyn with ours while yet he is perswaded that the Roman Church is the only Catholick Church and that our Reformed Churches are Heretical or Schismatical Though now there is none of us will deny that the Men in both these Cases have made a good change as having changed a false Religion for a true one yet for all that I dare say we should all agree they were both of them great Villains and Hypocrites for making that change because they made it not upon Honest Principles and in pursuance of their Judgment but in direct Contradiction to both Nay I dare say we should all of us think better of an ignorant well meaning Protestant that being seduced by the perswasions and Artifices of a cunning Popish Factor did really out of Conscience abandon our Communion and go over to the Romanists as thinking theirs to be the safest I say we should all of us entertain a more favourable Opinion of such a Man in such a Case Though really here the change is made from a true Keligion to a false one than we should of either of the other Men I have before named All this put together is abundantly sufficient to shew that no Man can in any Case Act against his Judgment or Perswasion but he is Guilty of Sin in so doing But then our Second Proposition is this The mistake of a Mans Judgment may be of such a Nature that as it will be a Sin to Act against his Judgment so it will likewise be a Sin to Act according to it For what Authority soever a Mans Conscience has over him it can never bear him out if he do an
the Established Worship I lay down this general Proposition That if the Principles I have laid down about Conscience be admitted then it is certainly true that no Man among us can justly plead Conscience for his Separation from the Church of England or can say that it is against his Conscience to joyn in Communion with it but only such a one as is perswaded in his own mind that he cannot Communicate with us without Sinning against God in so doing For since as we have said Conscience is nothing else but a Mans Judgment concerning Actions whether they be Duties or Sins or Indifferent And since the Law of God Commanding or Forbidding Actions or neither Commanding them nor Forbidding them is the only Rule by which a Man can Judg what Actions are Duties and what are Sins and what are Indifferent It plainly follows that as a Man cannot be bound in Conscience to do any Action which it doth not appear to him that Gods Law hath some way or other Commanded and made a Duty So neither can it go against a Mans Conscience to do any Action which he is not convinced that Gods Law hath some way or other Forbidden and so made a Sin And therefore in our present Case That Man only can justly plead Conscience for his Nonconformity that can truly say he is perswaded in his Judgment that Conformity is Forbidden by some Law of God Or which is the same thing No Man can say it is against his Conscience to joyn in our Communion but only such a one as really believes he shall Sin against some Law of God if he do joyn with us If against this it be excepted that it is very possible for a Man to be well satisfied that there is nothing directly Sinful in our Worship but yet for all that it may be against his Conscience to joyn with us in it As for instance in the Case where a Man takes it really to be his Duty to hold constant Communion with some other Congregation where he believes he can be more Edified or to which he is related by some Church Covenant To this I answer that in this Case I grant Conscience is rightly pleaded for Separation though how justifiably I do not now Examine But then I say this Plea proceeds upon the same grounds I just now laid down For if the Man as is supposed in the Case be convinced that it is his Duty by Gods Law as there is no other measure of Duty to hold Communion with others and not with us then he must at the same time be convinced that he cannot without Transgression of Gods Law that is without Sin joyn with us And that is the same Account which we give of its being against any Mans Conscience to hold Communion with us Further If it be urged against our Proposition that not only in the Case where a Man is perswaded of the Unlawfulness of our Communion but also in the Case where he only doubts of the Lawfulness of it a Man may justly plead Conscience for his Nonconformity so long as those doubts remain And therefore it is not truly said of us that in Order to the Pleading Conscience for Nonconformity one must be perswaded in his own mind that Conformity is Forbidden by some Law of God I Answer that if the Man who thus doubts of the Lawfulness of Conformity hath really entertain'd this Principle that it is a Sin to do any thing with a doubting Conscience I grant that it must go against his Conscience to conform so long as he doubts But then this is but the same thing we are contending for for therefore it goes against his Conscience to Communicate with us doubting as he doth because he believes he shall Sin against God if he should But if the Man we are speaking of do not think it a breach of Gods Law to Act with a doubting Conscience then I do not see how it can in the least go against his Conscience to Communicate with us upon that pretence So that notwithstanding these two Exceptions which are all I can think of it will still remain true that no Man can justly Plead Conscience for his Separation from the Church but he that is perswaded that he cannot joyn with it without Sinning against God Now if this Proposition be true as certainly it is then how many Mens pretences to Conscience for their Separating from us are hereby cut off And indeed how few in Comparison of the multitude of Dissenters among us will be left that can be able with Truth to say that it is against their Conscience to Communicate with us in our Prayers and in our Sacraments In the first Place it is Evident that all those who Separate from us upon Account of any private grudge or pique because they have been disobliged or have received some disappointment in the way of our Church or by the Men that are favourers of it and therefore out of a Pet will joyn themselves to another Communion All those that think they can serve their own turns more effectually by being of another way as for instance they can thereby better please a Relation from whom they have expectances they can better advance their Trade or increase their Fortunes they can better procure a Reputation or regain one that is Sunk In a word all those that to serve any ends of Pride or Interest or Passion or out of any other worldly Consideration do refuse us their Company in the Worship of God I say all such are certainly excluded from Pleading Conscience for their Separation In the second Place all those Lay People who refuse our Communion upon Account that the Pastors and Teachers whom they most Love and Reverence are not permitted to Exercise their Function among us whose Pretence it is that if these good Men were allowed to Teach in our Churches they would come to our Congregations but so long as that is refused they will hear them where they can I say all these are likewise excluded from Pleading Conscience for their Separation For however it may really and truly be against the Conscience of their Ministers to conform there being other things required of them than of ordinary People yet it is not against their Conscience so to do for they know no ill in Conformity but only that so many good Men are silenced In the third Place all those that refuse our Communion upon a meer dislike of several things in our Church Offices They do not for instance like a Form of Prayer in general and they have several things to Object against our Form in particular they do not like our Ceremonies they do not like the Surplice or the Cross in Baptism and sundry other things they find fault with Not that they have any thing to say against the Lawfulness of these things but only they have an Aversion to them All these Men likewise are cut off from Pleading Conscience for their Separation For they do
it But on the other side he hath no Doubt but is very well assured that he may Lawfully let it alone Or on the contrary he is very well satisfied that the Action is Lawful and that he may do it But he doubts whether Gods Law hath not made it a Duty so that he cannot Lawfully omit it This is that which we call a Single Doubt We call that a Double Doubt where a man doubts on both sides of an Action that is to say he doubts on one side whether he be not bound to do this Action Gods Law for any thing he knows made it a Duty But on the other side so is the Action circumstantiated with respect to him or he with respect to it that he doubts whether he be not bound to forbear the Action as it is now presented to him Gods Law having for any thing he knows forbid it So that he is at a loss what to do because he fears he may sin whether he doth the Action or doth it not I say it will be impossible to put any doubtful Case wherein a mans Conscience is concerned which will not fall under one of these two Heads I. Now as to the Case of a Single Doubt we may thus apply the General Rule That when a man doubts only on one side of an Action there it is more Reasonable to chuse that side of the Action concerning which he hath no Doubt than the other concerning which he Doubts supposing all other Considerations be equal And here comes in that famous Maxim which hath obtained both among Christians and Heathens Quod dubitas ne feceris which with the restriction I have now mentioned will for ever be good Advice in all Cases of this Nature It must needs be unreasonable to venture upon any Action where a man hath the least Fear or Suspicion that it is possible he may transgress some Law of God by it when it is in his power to Act without any Fear or Suspicion of that kind supposing all along this Consideration of the possibility of offending by this Action be not over-ballanced and so the Fear of it removed by other Considerations which the Circumstances of the Action do suggest Thus for Instance Here is a Man Doubts whether it be allowable in a Christian to drink a Health or put out Money to Interest or to go to Law as having conversed with such Men or such Books as do condemn these Practices and that not without some Colour from the Word of God The man is not indeed so convinced by their Discourses as to have taken up any Opinion or Perswasion that these Practices are unlawful nor would he censure any man that uses them because he sees there are as Good Men and for any thing he knows as good Arguments for the other side But he is not so clear in his judgment about these Points as to be able to pronounce any thing positively concerning them either way He cannot say that he believes them Lawful though he is not perswaded that they are unlawful which is the true state of a Doubting mind Now in these and all other such like Cases the Rule is plain That while a mans judgment continues thus in suspence it is more Reasonable for him to forbear these Practices For there is no pretence of obligation upon him from Gods Law to engage in any of them and why should he rashly throw himself into danger by venturing upon an Action concerning which he is uncertain whether it be Lawful or no He runs no hazard by forbearing these things but if he practise them he doth Thus far is right But then as I said this is always to be understood with this Proviso Caeteris paribus For if there should happen to be such other Considerations in the Action as have force enough to over-ballance this Consideration of Vncertainty it will then be reasonable to chuse that side of the Action concerning which I did before doubt rather than that of which I had no doubt at all Thus if the Man that makes a Question about any of the three things I before mentioned should light into such Circumstances that for Instance he must either drink such a single Health or a quarrel is like to ensue nay and that perhaps to the danger of some of the Lives of the Company Or again that he has no means of improving his Money in which his whole Fortune consists in any other way but by that of Vsury so that he and his Family must in time starve unless they be maintained by this Course Or lastly if an Orphan be trusted to his Care and the Estate of that Orphan is so entangled that he must be put upon the necessity either of waging a Law Suit for the clearing it or suffering his near Relation committed to his Charge to be defrauded of his Right I say if the Cases happen to be thus circumstantiated he that before doubted in General whether it was Lawful to drink a Health or to put out money to Vsury or to ingage in Law-Suits may I should think certainly satisfie himself that it is not only Lawful but Expedient in this particular Case notwithstanding his General Doubt to do any of these things and if he be a Wise Man he will make no Scruple of Acting accordingly Indeed he cannot be well excused if he do not thus Act. For it will not be sufficient to say I doubt whether these Practices are Lawful or Vnlawful and therefore I dare not ingage in them Why Man if you only Doubt about them you do by this ackonwledge that for any thing you know they may be Lawful as well as that for any thing you know they may be Vnlawful And if you be thus in aequilibrio sure such pressing Considerations as those which are presented in this Case ought to turn the Ballance Otherwise I do not know how you will answer either to your self or the World for the Consequences that may ensue For my part in such Cases as these I should think that nothing less than a Belief or Perswasion that the thing in Question is unlawful will justifie a mans Prudence in Acting on that side which he calls the Safer and which had not these Circumstances happened would really have been so To conclude if a great Good may be compassed or a great Evil may be avoided by doing a thing concerning which we have a General Speculative Doubt whether it be Lawful or no This very Consideration is in Reason sufficient to silence the Doubt That is it is enough to perswade us that it is not only Lawful but Advisable to do that in the present Circumstances which before and out of those Circumstances we Doubted in general whether it was Lawful to be done or no. II. And thus much concerning the Rule by which we are to proceed in the Case of a Single Doubt I now come to consider that which we call a Double Doubt and to shew what is to be
Duty that he generally takes the opportunities that are offered him of doing Honour to our Lord by partaking in his Supper though perhaps he is not often very well satisfied about his Preparation But so it happens that since his last Communicating he finds his Mind in a much worse frame than it used to be He hath lived more loosly and carelesly than he was wont or perhaps he hath been very lately guilty of some grievous sin that lies heavy upon his Conscience So that when his next usual time of Receiving comes he cannot but apprehend himself in a very unfit condition to Communicate in so sacred a Mystery Upon this he is in a great perplexity what to do For on the one side he thinks he hath more reason to believe that he offends God if he comes to the Sacrament in these Circumstances than if he forbears because he is more certain that there is a Law of God that forbids him to come unworthily than he is certain that there is a Law of God that commands him to receive every time that he hath opportunity But now on the other hand if it should prove that he is really bound by Gods Law to Commemorate the Death of Christ in the Sacrament every time that an opportunity is offered He is sensible in that Case it is a greater sin to neglect this Duty than to perform it unworthily so long still as he performs it out of Conscience What now is the Man to do in these Circumstances This is an exact Instance of the Case I spoke to in my third Proposition where on one side the Man runs a greater danger of sinning but on the other side if he should prove mistaken he sins in a greater degree Now for a Resolution of this Case I say That if the Question be put concerning the Mans absenting himself only once or twice from the Communion in order to the exercise of Repentance and the putting himself into a better frame of mind against another opportunity The Answer according to our Third Proposition must be this That it is very reasonable thus to do And there is good ground for this Answer For certainly a Man is more in danger of sinning if he receive unworthily than if he do not receive every time that there is a Communion There being an express Law against the one but no express Law obliging to the other For Christ hath no more appointed that we should receive the Sacrament so many times in a year than he hath appointed that we should Pray so many times in a day or that we should give such a determinate proportion of our Annual Income to Charitable Uses As to these things he hath bound us in the General but as to the Particulars the Circumstances of our Condition and the Laws of our Superiors are to determine us Only this we are to remember that the oftner we perform these Duties it is the better and we can hardly be said to be Christians if we do not perform them frequently This now being so Though it be true that a Man would be guilty of a greater sin if he should at any time though but once abstain from the Communion than if he should come to it with such unworthiness as we are here speaking of supposing that Christs Law had precisely tied him up to communicate every time that a Communion is appointed Yet since there is so little appearance of Reason to conclude that Christ has thus tied him up and withal on the other hand he runs so certain a danger of sinning if he should Communicate at this time apprehending himself to be so unworthy as he doth This Consideration of the certain danger must needs in this Case overballance the other of the greater sin and make it appear more Reasonable to the Man to suspend his receiving to another Opportunity against which time he hopes to be better prepared than to adventure upon it in his present Circumstances But then if the Question be put concerning the Mans absenting himself Customarily and Habitually from the Lords Table upon this account of unworthiness that which I have now said will not hold For in this Case the Man is in as much danger of sinning by not receiving at all as by receiving unworthily nay and a great deal more as I shewed in my first particular about this Case And withal he is guilty of a much greater sin in wholly withdrawing from the Sacrament than in coming to it though with never so great Apprehensions of his own unworthiness as I shewed in my second And therefore since the danger is at least equal on both sides he must chuse that side on which the least sin lies That is to say he must Communicate frequently at least so often as the Laws of the Church do enjoin him which is three times a year though he be in danger of doing it unworthily rather than not Communicate at all Having thus gone through Three of our Propositions concerning a Double Doubt All that remains is to put our Case about the Sacrament so as that it may serve for an Instance or Illustration of our fourth and last Here therefore we are to suppose our Doubting Man to be in such a Condition that he apprehends he runs an equal danger of sinning whether he receives the Sacrament or receives it not And withall so unskilful a Judge is he of the morality of Actions that he apprehends no great difference in the degree of the sin whether he do the one or the other In this Case now all the Man can do is to consider what Inducements he has in Point of Prudence or Interest to do or to forbear the Action he doubts about for since all other Considerations in the Case are equal those of this kind are to turn the Ballance according to our Fourth Proposition But if the Case turn upon this Point I dare say no man will be long doubtful whether he should frequent the Sacrament in obedience to the Laws or forbear it For it is plain that he Acts more Prudently and more consults his own Advantage both Temporal and Spiritual As for the Temporal Advantages which a Man receives by obeying the Laws in this matter I will not now insist on them though they are neither few nor inconsiderable That which I desire chiefly to be here considered is this That in point of Spiritual Advantages it is much more advisable for our Doubtting Person to come to the Sacrament than to abstain from it For by frequenting this Ordinance he takes the best method both to grow more worthy if he be now unworthy and likewise to cure the Doubts and Scruples he is now troubled with But if he neglect this means of Grace he not only takes an effectual course to increase and perpetuate his Fears and Doubts it being very probable that the longer he defers his receiving the Sacrament still the more doubtful will he be of his being qualified for it But also is
and have used our best endeavours to satisfie our selves how the Law of God stands as to that matter there the Command of our Superiours is to over-rule our Doubt But further to shew what little force there is in this Argument which indeed hath made a great deal of noise we will try whether it will not make as much against our Adversaries if they will give us leave to put the Case as it seems to make against us when they put the Case Let us suppose therefore as before that an Israelite was very Doubtful whether Jehovah or Baal was the true God And let us suppose likewise as we reasonably may that the King of Israel made a Law that all the Temples and Altars of Baal should be demolished and that Jehovah only should be worshipped What advice now would they give to the doubting Man in this Case Will they say that he must comply with the Kings Laws and worship Jehovah only while yet he is doubtful in his own mind whether Baal be not the true God Why this is against their own Principle and gives away the Cause to us But will they then say that while this Doubt remains the Man must not obey Authority in worshipping Jehovah only but he must either worship Baal and not Jehovah or both Baal and Jehovah together Why this is indeed agreeable to their Principle but then I appeal to my Reader whether according to their way of resolving of Doubts a man is not as necessarily ingaged in Idolatry and other grievous sins as he is by our way So that you see this Argument concludes as strongly against them as against us But in Truth it concludes nothing either one way or other but is wholly Forreign to the Question as I shewed in my stating of it whither I refer the Reader The Second Argument is drawn from the Limitations which God himself hath put to the Obedience we are to pay to our Governours and it may be formed thus God hath not commanded us to obey our Superiours absolutely and in all things but only in all such things as are not contrary to his Law So that where ever we are uncertain whether the Commands of our Superiour be Lawful or no we must at the same time be as much uncertain whether we be bound to obey And if so how can you say that it is any more our Duty to obey them than to disobey them in a Doubtful Case To this we answer That though we acknowledge that no Man is bound to obey his Superiours any farther than they command Lawful things Yet when ever it happens that they command such things as we equally doubt whether they be Lawful or no there are so many weighty Reasons to be given why a man should obey rather than disobey in that Case as will perswade any Wise and Good Man to think it his Duty to obey And for those Reasons I refer my Reader to the Five Particulars I before insisted on The Third and indeed the Principal Argument is drawn from the words of St. Paul in the 14th of the Romans and the last verse He that doubteth is damned if he eat beause he eateth not of Faith and whatsoever is not of Faith is sin From whence they thus Argue If it was a sin in those Christians that St. Paul speaks of to eat any Food though in it self Lawful to be eaten so long as they Doubted whether it was Lawful or no Then by parity of Reason it must be a sin to do any other Action so long as we have a Doubt in our minds concerning the Lawfulness of it and if so it is not the Magistrates commanding that Action that will make it cease to be a sin in us to do it This is the great Argument that is brought against our Point and I shall give it a full and a just discussion Because in truth if we come clearly off from this Text of St. Paul not only all that is said against Obeying Authority with a Doubting Conscience will fall to the ground But likewise most of the difficulties which entangle and perplex the Case of a Doubting Conscience in other matters will be in a great measure removed But before I enter upon a particular discussion of this Text with reference to our present Controversie it will be needful to premise some general Account of it for the sake of ordinary Readers that so understanding before hand the Case which the Apostle speaks to and the meaning of the Expressions he here useth they may be the better able to go along with us First therefore I shall give an Account of the Subject matter of St. Paul's Discourse in this Chapter II. Of what is meant by Doubting in this Text. III. What is meant by eating not of Faith IV. What is meant by being Damned or Condemned for so doing First As to the Subject Matter of St. Paul's Discourse in this Chapter it is undoubtedly the Case of those Jewish Christians that were not so fully instructed in their Christian Liberty but that they still believed all the Ceremonial Laws of Moses concerning the Observation of Days and the Difference of Meats to be still in force and to oblige their Conscience Or at least they mightily doubted whether they did or not So that whereas other Christians who were better instructed made no scruple of eating any kind of Food though forbidden by the Law of Moses These men had great Reason to forbear such kind of Meats because they were Perswaded or at least it appeared more probable to them than otherwise that they were bound so to do That this was the Case of those that St. Paul here styles the weak Christians appears from several passages of this Chapter nor I think is it much questioned by any As for what is intimated in the second Verse concerning their abstaining from Flesh altogether and only eating Herbs which would make one think that it was not purely their respect to the Law of Moses but some other thing which made them thus to put a difference between Meats because by that Law they were no more tyed from Flesh excepting only Swines-Flesh and a few other sorts than they were from Herbs St. Chrysostome hath well obviated this difficulty in the Account he gives of the Case of those Christians There were saith he several of the Believing Jews who taking themselves to be obliged in Conscience by the Law of Moses even after their Christianity did still retain the Observation of Meats not daring wholly to throw off the Yoak of the Law These now lest they should be found out and reproached by the other Christians for thus abstaining from Swines-Flesh and the like upon account of Conscience chose to eat no Flesh at all but to feed altogether upon Herbs that so this way of living of theirs might pass rather for a kind of Fast or Religious Abstinence than for a Legal Observance Thus St. Chrysostome and to the same purpose Theodoret and
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
Form Others Doubt about the Lawfulness of our Ceremonies or our way of Administring the Sacrament And others it may be about other things None of them can indeed say that any of these things do go against their Conscience or that they believe the use of them to be unlawful For that is the Case of a Resolved Conscience with which we have nothing here to do But they are undetermined and uncertain whether they be Lawful or no and so long as they continue under this Suspence of Judgment they dare not joyn in our Worship fearing they would sin against God if they should Now of those that thus Doubt there may be two sorts There are some perhaps that have only a Single Doubt in this matter That is to say They make a Doubt whether they may Lawfully joyn with us so long as those suspected Conditions are required of them But they make no Doubt but are very well satisfied that they may Lawfully Separate from us Again there are others that Doubt on both sides as they have good Reason to do That is As they Doubt on one hand whether the Terms of our Communion be not sinful So they Doubt on the other hand whether it be not sinful to Separate upon account of those Terms Now of these likewise there may be two sorts Some perhaps are equally Doubtful whether the Terms of our Communion be lawful or no. Others Doubt unequally that is are more inclined to believe that they are Sinful than that they are Lawful That now which is to be enquired into is What is most Reasonable and Adviseable in Point of Conscience to be done in each of these Cases Now as to the first of these Cases where a man hath only a Doubt on one side and that is Whether he may Lawfully Communicate with us but he hath no Doubt that he may lawfully Separate To this I say two things First That the mans Doubting only on one side in this matter doth not make it more safe for him to Separate than if he had Doubted on both sides Because indeed if he must Doubt at all it is his Duty he is bound to Doubt on both sides and he is guilty of gross and criminal Ignorance of the Laws of God if he do not And if so then his Doubting only on one side doth not alter the Case but it must have the same Resolution as if it was a Double Doubt properly so called If it be said that it is a constant Rule of a Doubting Conscience and we have allowed it as such that in Cases where a man hath only a Doubt on one side of an Action it is more safe to chuse that side on which he hath no Doubt than that other concerning which he Doubts I do readily grant it But then it is to be remembred that that Rule is always intended and doth only obtain in such Cases where a man may certainly without danger of sinning forbear that Action of the Lawfulness of which he Doubts though he cannot without danger of sinning do the Action so long as he Doubts about it But now in our Case here it is evident to all men that are not wilfully blind that as there may be a danger of Sinning if a man should conform with a Doubting Conscience So there is certainly a danger of Sinning nay and we say a much greater danger if a man do not conform So that that Rule hath here no place at all The truth is Our Case if it be rightly put is this A man is here supposed to reason thus with himself I am very well satisfied in my own mind and I make no Doubt at all that I may Lawfully and without danger of Sin cut my self off from the Communion of the Church which yet by his Christianity he is bound to maintain and preserve as far as he can And I may likewise lawfully and without danger of sinning live in a constant Disobedience and Refractariness to all that Authority that God hath set over me to which yet by as plain Laws as any are in Nature or the Gospel he is bound to be subject I say I am satisfied in my own mind that I may lawfully do both these things But I am very unsatisfied and doubtful whether in my present Circumstances it is not my Duty thus to do so as that I shall Sin if I do not What now would any Prudent man say to this Case Why certainly he would say this That he who can Doubt after this fashion is either a very Ill man or a very Ignorant one And that such a man doth a great deal more stand in need of good Advice and wholsome Instructions about the plain Duties of Christianity than of Rules and Directions how to behave himself in Doubtful Cases Because indeed the best Rules of that kind are not to his Case so long as he continues thus Ignorant And if he should observe them yet that would not justifie his Acting if it should indeed prove contrary to the Law of God because it was both in his power and it was his Duty to know better A mans Right proceeding according to the Rules of a Doubting Conscience in a Case where he is entangled by a wilfully Eroneous one will no more discharge him from Sin as to his Soul if he do an evil Action than the Second Concoction though never so regular can rectifie the Errors of the First as to his Body But Secondly Though that which I have now offered be the proper Answer to the Case before us Yet there is this further to be said to it viz. Though we should suppose that the Law of God had not obliged us to keep the Unity of the Church or to obey our lawful Superiors but had left it as an indifferent matter and that there was no danger at all in forbearing these things but the only danger was in doing them So that the Doubt about Conformity should have perfectly the Nature of a Single Doubt as it is put in the Case I say now even upon this Supposition it will bear a just Dispute whether Conformity or Non-conformity be the more eligible side Nay I say further that if the Rule I laid down about a Single Doubt be true it will appear that as things now stand it is more reasonable for a man to Obey the Laws and Communicate with the Church so long as he hath only a bare Doubt about the Lawfulness of these things than to Disobey and Separate For thus I argue Though in a Single Doubt the Rule be That a man should chuse that side of an Action concerning which he hath no Doubt rather than that concerning which he Doubts Yet as was said before that Rule is always to be understood with this Proviso that all other Considerations in the Case be equal If it should happen that a very great Good may be compassed or a very great Evil may be avoided by Acting on the Doubtful side That very Consideration
Communion is the sin of Schism and that is a sin of the blackest dye and greatest guilt noted the in Scriptures for an act of carnality a work of the Flesh and of the Devil for the necessity of our coming to Church and Worshipping God in the same publick place with our Neighbours and submitting to the Government Discipline and Customs of that particular Church we live in doth not depend only upon the Statutes of the Realm which enforce it and the Command of the Civil Magistrate who requires it but by the Law of our Religion all needless Separation or Division amongst Christians breaking into little Parties and Factions from whence comes strife envying confusion and every evil work is to be most carefully avoided as the very bane of Christianity the rending of Christs body and as utterly destructive not only of the peace but of the being of a Church So that should all the Laws about Conformity and against Conventicles be rescinded and voided should the Magistrate indulge or connive at the Separate Assemblies yet still this would not make our joyning with them not to be sinful Since to preserve the unity of Christians and one Communion is the necessary duty of every member of the Church and it can never be thought a justifiable thing to cut off our selves from the Communion of the Church or the Body of Christ out of complyance with any erring or ignorant Brethren But the sinfulness of withdrawing from the Communion of our Church either totally or in part hath been so evidently shewn in some late discourses written on that subject that I do despair of convincing those of the danger of it who can withstand the force of all that hath been already offered to them I only conclude thus much that there is far more of the sin of uncharitableness in such Separation and Division than there can be in all the Offence that is imagined to be given by our Conformity From what I have already at large discoursed it plainly follows that they are things meerly indifferent not only in their own nature but also in respect to us in the use of which we are obliged to consider the weakness of our Brethren What is our duty must be done tho Scandal follow it What is evil and sinful ought to be left undone upon the score of a greater obligation than that of Scandal but now in matters wherein our practise is not determined by any Command we ought so to exercise our liberty as if possible to avoid giving any Offence to our Brethren This is an undoubted part of that charity which one Christian ought always to be ready to shew to another by admonition instruction good example and by the forbearance of things Lawful at which he foreseeth his Neighbour out of weakness will be apt to be Scandalized to endeavour to prevent his falling into any sin or mischief and this we teach and press upon our People as much as Dissenters themselves can in obedience to St. Paul's rules about meats and days things neither in themselves good or evil nor determined by any Authority and therefore they were every way a proper instance wherein Christians might exercise their charity and compassion one to the other and in such cases St. Paul declares that he would rather wholly forego his liberty than by these indifferences endanger the Soul of his Brother as in that famous place 1 Cor. 8. 13. If meat make my Brother to offend I will eat no Flesh while the World standeth lest I make my Brother to Offend where by Flesh and meat is to be understood such as had been Offered unto Idols which tho lawful for a Christian to eat at common meals yet the Apostle would wholly abstain from rather than wound the weak Conscience of a Brother If I by the Law of charity as the Reverend Bishop Taylour saith Great exemp p. 420 must rather quit my own goods than suffer my Brother to perish much rather must I quit my priviledg And We should ill die for our Brother who will not lose a meal to prevent his sin or change a dish to save his Soul and if the thing be indifferent to us yet it ought not to be indifferent to us whether our Brother live or die After this manner do we profess our selves ready to do or forbear any thing in our own power to win and gain our Dissenting Brethren to the Church We grant that those who conform are obliged by this Law of charity not needlesly to vex and exasperate our Dissenters nor to do any thing which they are not bound to do that may estrange them more from the Church but to restrain themselves in the use of that liberty God and the Laws have left them for the sake of peace and out of condescension to their Brethren We dare not indeed omit any duty we owe to God or our Superiours either in Church or State nor can we think it fit and reasonable that our Apostolical Government Excellent Liturgy Orderly Worship of God used in our Church should all be presently condemned and laid aside as soon as some Weak men take Offence at them but in all other things subject to our own ordering and disposal we acknowledge our selves bound to please our Brother for his good unto Edification I only add here that this very rule of yielding to our Brother in things indifferent and undetermined ought to have some restrictions and limitations several of which are mentioned by Mr. Jeans whom I have so often named as First That we are not to forbear these indifferent things where there is only a possibility of Scandal but where the Scandal consequent is probable for otherwise we should be at an utter loss and uncertainty in all our actions and never know what to do Secondly Our weak Brethren must have some probable ground for their imagination that what we do is evil and sinful or else we must wear no Ribbands nor put off our Hats but come all to Thou and Thee and for this exception he gives this substantial reason that if we are to abstain from all indifferent things in which another without probable ground imagineth that there is sin the servitude of Christians under the Gospel would be far greater and more intolerable than that of the Jews under the Mosaical administration Thirdly This must be understood of indifferent things that are of no very great importance for if it be a matter of some weight and moment as yielding me some great profit I must only for a while forbear it untill my Brother is better informed Lastly We must not wholly betray our Christian liberty to please peevish and froward people or to humour our Neighbour in an erroneous and superstitious opinion for which he quotes Mr. Calvin who in his Comment upon 1 Cor. 8. 13. tells of some foolish Interpreters that leave to Christians almost no use at all of things indifferent upon pretence to avoid the Offence of Superstitious
will not Wash out For this in effect is Trampling upon and Vilifying of the Precious Blood of our Saviour and to detract from the Virtue and Merits of his Sacrifice and thereby render it weak and insufficient to save us Blindly therefore to follow the Example of Christ is a certain way to run into Error and Mischief We must then of necessity if we would follow him safely seek out for a plain Rule in the Word of God or guide our Selves by the Dictates of Reason and Prudence and either way is a sufficent Demonstration that a bare Example is not to be trusted to Those who urge the example of Christ for Sitting were somewhat ware of this namely that his example and those of his Apostles are not to be Imitated by us in all things and therefore they lay down this Gillesp against Cer. p. 339. for their Maxim and Guide We are bound to Imitate Christ and the commendable example of his Apostles in all things wherein it is not evident they had special reasons moving them thereunto which do not concern us But I would willingly be informed how we shall be ever able to know when they acted upon special reasons and what they were that we may know our Duty if a bare Example without any Rule obliges us And if we guide our selves by Scripture or Reason in this matter then they are the measures of the Example Besides if we are not to Imitate them in such things which they were moved to do upon special reasons which did not concern us then we are obliged to Imitate their examples in such things as they did upon general and common reasons which concern us as well as them or we are not obliged at all by any Example and if so then those reasons are our Rule to which we are to reduce their Examples Without we find some general or common Reason we have no Warrant according to their own Principle to follow their Examples and when such Reasons do appear then it 's not the example alone that obliges us but Reason that approves the Example To bring their own Rule to the case in Hand How do they know but our Lord was moved to Sit at the Sacrament by Special reasons drawn from that Time and Place from the Feast of the Passover to which that Gesture was peculiar How do they know but that our Lord might have used another Gesture if the Sacrament had been Instituted apart from the Passover The necessity of the time made the Jews Eat the Passover after one fashion in Egypt which afterward ceasing gave occasion to alter it in Canaan and how do we know but that our Lord complyed with the present necessity and that his Example if he did Sit was onely temporary and not designed for a Standing Law perpetually obliging to a like practice If Christ acted upon special reasons then we are not obliged by their own Rule and if he did not let them produce the reasons if they can which make this Example of Christ of general and perpetual use and to oblige all Christians to follow it When ever they do this I am sure they will expose their own Principle which they have built so much upon to the Scorn and Contempt of the World which is this That the bare example of Christ and good Gillesp 338. disp against Ceremo Men in Scripture are a compleat Rule and Sufficient Warrant for our Actions in such things as we have no Precept or Prohibition for in the Word of God That a Christians Duty in a great measure flows purely from Examples Recorded in the Word of God and not from the express Laws of God which he hath revealed to us 4. It 's absurd to talk of Christs Example apart from all Law and Rule and to make that alone a Principle of Duty distinct from the precepts of the Gospel because Christ himself all the while the World enjoyed the benefit of his example governed his actions by a Law For if we consider him as a Man like unto us in all things Sin onely excepted he was Born under the obligation of the Moral and Natural Law as a Jew under the Mosaick Law as the Messias sent of God into the World to compass the great Work of our Redemption which he had freely undertaken he still acted by Divine appointment and was under the Gospel-Law He came to fulfil all Righteousness and to teach us the whole Mind and Will of God and Exemplify to us what he taught and delivered That which made that bitter and deadly Cup which ended his Days relish with him was this consideration that it was a Cup given him by John 18. 11. his Father and the Drinking it was agreeable to his will and it was the comfort and support of his Soul a little before his Death that he had finished the Work that his Father had given him He frequently professed Joh. 17. 4. v. Mat. 11. 27. Luke 2. 49. Joh. 4. 34. Joh. 5. 30. 8 c. 28 29. Joh. 10. 25. Joh. 14. 24 31. Joh. 15. 10 15. in his life-time that he did as his Father gave him Commandment and that it was his great business and delight to do the will of his Father and many such expressions he used which may be consulted at leisure If therefore we onely look to his Example without considering the various Capacities and Relations he bare both towards God and towards us and the several Laws by which he stood bound which were the measures of his Actions we shall miserably mistake our way and bewilder our selves we shall Act like Fools when we do such things as he did pursuant to infinite Wisdom Thus to give but one instance if we should Subject our selves to the Law of Moses as he did for he fulfilled the Ceremonial Law which he came to abolish we should thereby frustrate the great Design of the Gospel and of our Saviours coming into the World And yet even this we are obliged to do if his Example alone be a sufficient Warrant for our Actions I have staid the longer upon this Head because so ill a use hath been made of Scripture-Examples and to shew how far forth we may safely steer by them I scarce know any one Doctrine so teeming and big with Error so Fatal to the Souls of private Persons and the Peace of Publick Societies both Civil and Ecclesiastical as that which teaches us to Learn and Derive our Duty from and to Judge of the Goodness and Badness of our Actions by the Examples of Christ and good Men over and above what we are obliged to do by the Precepts and Laws of the Gospel 3. They who urge the Example of Christ against Kneeling at the Sacrament as our Rule to which we ought to Conform do not follow it themselves Because the posture he Instituted the Sacrament in which they say was a Passover-Gesture was if so very different from that which they so earnestly plead for
properly Acts of Communion Having thus premised the explication of these terms what is meant by Church and what is meant by Church-Communion and what is meant by Fixt or Constant and occasional Communion the right understanding of these things will make it very easie to resolve those cases which Immediately respect Church-Communion and I shall Instance in these three 1. Whether Communion with some Church or other especially when the Church is divided into so many Sects and Parties be a necessary Duty incumbent on all Christians 2. Whether constant Communion with that Church with which occasional Communion is Lawful be a necessary Duty 3. Whether it be Lawful for the same person to Communicate with two separate Churches Case 1. Whether Communion with some Church Case 1 or other especially when the Church is divided into so many Sects and Parties be a necessary Duty incumbent on all Christians Now methinks the resolution of this is as plain as whether it be necessary for every Man to be a Christian For every Christian is Baptized into the Communion of the Church and must continue a Member of the Church till he renounce his Membership by Schism or Infidelity or be cast out of the Church by Ecclesiastical censures Baptism incorporates us into the Christian Church that is makes us Members of the Body of Christ which is his Church and is frequently so called in Scripture For there is but one Body and one Spirit Eph. Eph. 5. 23. 4. 12. 4. 4. one Christian Church which is animated and governed by the one Spirit of Christ And we are all Baptized into this one Body For as the Body is one and Col. 1. 18. hath many Members and all the members of that one Body being many are one Body so also is Christ that is the Christian Church which is the Body of Christ of which he is the Head for by one Spirit we are all Baptized 1 Cor. 12. 12 13. into one Body whether we be Jews or Gentiles whether we be bond or Free and are all made to drink into one Spirit for the body is not one member but many Now I have already proved that Church Communion is nothing else but Church-Membership to be in Communion with the Church and to be a member of the Church signifying the same thing And I think I need not prove that to be in a state of Communion contains both a right and an Obligation to Actual Communion He who is a member of the Church may Challenge all the Priviledges of a member among which Actual Communion is none of the least to be admitted to all the Acts and Offices of Christian-Communion to the Communion of Prayers and Sacraments and all other Christian Duties which no Man who is not a member of the Church has any right to And he who is a member is bound to perform all those Duties and Offices which are Essential to Church Communion and therefore is bound to Communicate with the Church in Religious Assemblies to joyn in Prayers and Sacraments to attend publick Instructions and to live like a member of the Church But to put this past all doubt that external and actual Communion is an essential Duty of a Church-member I shall offer these plain proofs of it 1. That Baptism makes us Members of the visible Church of Christ but there can be no visible Church without visible Communion and therefore every visible Member by vertue of his Membership is bound to external and visible Communion when it may be had 2. This is essential to the notion of a Church as it is a Body and Society of Christians For all Bodies and Societies of Men are Instituted for the sake of some common Duties and Offices to be performed by the Members of it A Body of Men is a Community and it is a strange kind of Community in which every Member may act by it self without any Communication with other Members of the same Body And yet such a kind of Body as this the Christian Church is if it be not an essential Duty of every Member to live in the exercise of visible Communion with the Church when he can For there is the same Law for all Members and either all or none are bound to actual Communion But this is more absurd still when we consider that the Church is such a Body as consists of variety of Members of different Offices and Officers which are of no use without actual and visible Communion of all its Members To what purpose did Christ appoint such variety of Ministers in his Church Apostles Prophets Evangelists Eph. 4. 11 12. Pastors and Teachers for the perfecting of the Saints for the work of the Ministry for the edifying of the Body of Christ to what purpose has he instituted a standing Ministry in his Church to offer up the Prayers of the Faithful to God to instruct exhort reprove and adminster the Christian Sacraments if private Christians are not bound to maintain Communion with them in all Religious Offices 3. Nay the Nature of Christian Worship obliges us to Church-Communion I suppose no Man will deny but that every Christian is bound to Worship God according to our Saviours Institution and what that is we cannot learn better than from the Example of the Primitive Christians of whom St. Luke gives us this account that they continued Stedfast in the Acts 2. 41. Apostles Doctrine and Worship and in breaking of Bread and in Prayers That which makes any thing in a Strict sense an Act of Church-Communion is that it is performed in the Fellowship of the Apostles or in Communion with the Bishops and Ministers of the Church They are appointed to Offer up the Prayers of Christians to God in his Name and therefore tho the private devotions of Christians are acceptable to God as the Prayers of Church-Members yet none but publick Prayers which are Offered up by Men who have their Authority from Christ to Offer these Spiritual Sacrifices to God are properly the Prayers of the Church and Acts of Church-Communion If then we must Offer up our Prayers to God according to Christ's Institution that is by the hands of persons Authorized and set apart for that purpose we must of necessity joyn in the Actual and Visible Communion of the Church The Sacrament of the Lords Supper is the principal part of Christian Worship and we cannot Celebrate this Feast but in Church-Communion for this is a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a common Supper or Communion-Feast which in all Ages of the Church has been administred by Consecrated Persons and in Church-Communion for it loses its Nature and Signification when it is turned into a private Mass so that if every Christian is bound to the Actual performance of true Christian Worship he is bound to an Actual Communion with the Christian Church 4. We may observe further that Church Authority is exercised only about Church-Communion which necessarily supposes that all Christians who
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
out of England without interrupting our Communion with the Church of England for the Communion is one and the same in all Christian Churches which are in Communion with each other though they may observe different Rites and Modes of Worship And this I suppose is a Sufficient answer to that other untoward consequence that if the Members of the Church of England may occasionally Communicate with the French Church then Constant Communion is not always a Duty where occasional Communion is lawful I suppose because we are not bound to a constant actual or presential Communion with the French Church though we may occasionally Communicate with it But certainly Sir Had you ever considered what I discourst about constant and occasional Communion you would not have made such an Objection as this For this is a Modern distinction which has no sence at the bottom as I plainly shewed But however by constant Communion our Dissenters understand the performing the Acts of Communion always or ordinarily in the same Church and by occasional Communion performing the Acts of Communion sometimes or as occasion serves in another Church now with respect to this Notion of constant or occasional Communion as it signifies the constant and ordinary or the Occasional Acts of Communion must that question be understood whether Constant Communion he a Duty where Occasional Communion is Lawful the meaning of which question is this whether when other reasons and circumstances determine my Personal Communion Ordinarily to one Church it be not my Duty to Communicate ordinarily with that Church if I can lawfully Communicate sometimes with it and there being no other reason to justifie non-Communion with any Church with which I am bound for other reasons Ordinarily to Communicate but onely Sinful Terms of Communion and there being no Colour for such a Pretence where occasional Communion is acknowledged Lawful for Sinful Terms of Communion make occasional as well as constant Acts of Communion Sinful I hence conclude that it is a necessary Duty to Communicate constantly or ordinarily with that Church in which I live if it be Lawful to Communicate occasionally or sometimes with it But if any Man will be so perverse as to understand this Question as you now do not of the Communion of a Church which for other reasons we are bound to Communicate Ordinarily with but of any Church with which I may Lawfully Communicate as occasion serves it makes it an absurd and senseless Proposition to say that constant Communion by that meaning presential and personal Communion is always a Duty where occasional Communion is lawful For at this rate if occasional Communion with the Protestant Churches of France Geneva Holland Germany be Lawful it becomes a necessary Duty for me to Communicate always personally and presentionally with all these Churches at the same time which no man can do who can be present but in one place at a time But yet thus far the Proposition holds universally true that whatever Church I can occasionally Communicate with without Sin I am also bound to Communicate constantly with whenever such reasons as are necessarie to determine my Communion to a particular Church make it my Dutie to do so And no man in his Wits ever understood this Question in any other sense But this you think cannot be my meaning For accorcording to me no Man is obliged to be a Member of one Sound Church more than another provided the distance is not so great but that he may Communicate with both It is wonderful to me Sir how you should come to fasten so many absurd Propositions upon me and I would desire of you for the future if you have no regard to your own Reputation yet upon Principles of Common Honesty not to write so hastily but to take some time to understand a Book before you undertake to confute it Where do I say that no man is Obliged to be a Member of one Sound Church more than of another I assert indeed that no Baptized Christian is a Member of any particular Church considered meerly as particular but is a Member of the universal Church and of all sound Orthodox Churches as parts of the Universal Church This puts him into a State of Communion with the whole Church without which he cannot be properly said to perform any Act of Church-Communion though he should join in all the Acts and Offices of Christian worship But is there no difference between being a Member of the Universal Church and of all particular Churches which are Parts and Members of the Universal Church and not to be Obliged to be a Member of one Sound Church more than of another The first supposes that every Christian whatever particular Church he actually Communicates in is a Member of the whole Christian Church and of all particular Sound Churches the second supposes the quite contrary that Christians are so Members of one Church as they are not of another that constant Communion in a particular Church confines their Church-Membership to that particular Church in which they Communicate So that the question is not what Church I must be a Member of for every Christian is a Member of the whole Church not meerly of this or that particular Church but what particular Church I must Communicate in now our Obligation to Communicate in a certain particular Church results from the place wherein we live The Church in which we were Born and Baptized and have our Ordinary abode and Residence the Church which is incorporated into the State of which we are Natural Subjects if it be a true and sound Christian Church Challenges our Communion and Obedience Now in the same place there never can be any Competition between two Churches because there must be but one Church in the same place and therefore there can be no dispute in what Church we must constantly Communicate which must be the Church in which we live But is there not a French and a Dutch as well as an English Church in London and since distance of place does not hinder may we not choose which of these we will ordinarily Communicate with I answer no we have onely the Church of England in England The French Church is in France and the Dutch Church is in Holland though there is a French and Dutch Congregation allowed in London These Congregations belong to their own Original Churches and are under their Government and Censures but there is no Church-Power and Authority in England but only of the Church of England and therefore though we may occasionally Communicate with the French Congregation our Obligation to constant Communion is with the Church of England which alone has Authority and Jurisdiction in England to require our Communion and Obedience one particular Church is distinguisht from another not by a distinct and separate Communion which is Schismatical but by distinct Power and Jurisdiction and that Church within whose Jurisdiction we live can onely Challenge our Communion and I suppose
something essential to a Church But if the Church have all things essential to it it is a true Church and not to be separated from When the V. Annotations on the Apologet. Nar. p. 17. Church of Rome is called a true Church it 's understood in a Metaphysical or Natural Sence as a Thief is a true Man and the Devil himself though the Father of Lies is a true Spirit But withal she is a false Church as Mr. Brinsly saith from Bishop Hall an Heretical Arraignment of Schism p. 26. Apostatical Antichristian Synagogue And so to separate from her is a Duty But when the Church of England is said to be a true Church or the Parochial Churches true Churches it 's in a moral Sence as they are sound Churches which may safely be communicated with Thus doth Dr. Bryan make the Dwelling with God Serm. 6. p. 289 291. Opposition The Church of Rome is a part of the universal visible Church of Christians so far as they profess Christianity and acknowledg Christ their Head but it is the visible Society of Traiterous Vsurpers so far as they profess the Pope to be their Head c. From this Church therefore which is Spiritual Babylon God's People are bound to separate c. but not from Churches which have made Separation from Rome as the reformed Protestant Churches in France and these of Great Britain have done in whose Congregations is found Truth of Doctrine a lawful Ministry and a People professing the true Religion submitting to and joyning together in the true Worship of God Such a Separation would as has been said unchurch it This would be to deny Christ holds Communion with it or to deny Communion with a Church with which Christ holds Communion contrary to a Principle that is I think universally maintained The Error of these Men saith Mr. Brightman * * * On Rev. c. 3. V. Jenkin on Jude v. 19. Allen Vindiciae Pietatis second part p. 123. Vindication of Presbyterian Government p. 130. Cotton on John p. 156. i◠full of Evil who do in such a manner make a Departure from this Church by total Separation as if Christ were quite banished from hence and that there could be no hope of Salvation to those that abide there Let these Men consider that Christ is here feasting with his Members will they be ashamed to sit at Meat there where Christ is not ashamed to sit Further this would be a notorious Schism so the old Non-conformists conclude * * * Grave Consut p. 57. Cawdrey's Independency further proved p. 136. Because we have a true Church consisting of a lawful Ministry and a faithful People therefore they cannot separate themselves from us but they must needs incur the most shameful and odious Reproach of manifest Schism for what is that saith another †††Brinsly's Arraigment p. 15 24 44. but a total Separation from a true Church This lastly would not diminish but much increase the Fault of the Separation As another saith | | | Baily's Disswasive c. 6. p. 104. For it is a greater Sin to depart from a Church which I profess to be true and whose Ministry I acknowledg to be saving than from a Church which I conceive to be false and whose Ministers I take to have no Calling from God nor any Blessing from his Hand This therefore is their avow'd Principle That total Separation from the Church is unlawful And this the old Non-conformists did generally hold and maintain against the Brownists * * * Ames 's Puritanismus Angl. V. Parker on the Cross part 2. c. 91. § 21. Bax. Defence p. 55. and the Dissenting Brethren did declare on their part †††Apologet. Nar. p. 6. We have always professed and that in those times when the Churches of England were the most either actually over-spread with Defilements or in the greatest Danger thereof c. that we both did and would hold Communion with them as the Churches of Christ And amongst the present Non-conformists several have writ for Communion with the Church against those that separate from it and have in Print declared it to be their Duty and Practice So Mr. Baxter | | | Sacril desert p. 75. I constantly joyn i◠my Parish-Church in Liturgy and Sacrament It 's said of Mr. Joseph Allen * * * The Life of Mr. J. Allen p. 111. That he as frequently attended on the Publick Worship as his Opportunities and Strength permitted †††The Doctrine of Schism p. 64. Of Mr. Brinsley that he ordinarily attended on the Publick Worship Dr. Collins saith as much of himself | | | Reasonable Account c. Mr. Lye in his Farewell Sermon doth advise his People to attend the Publick Worship of God to hear the best they could and not to separate but to do as the old Puritans did thirty Years before Mr. Cradacot in his Farewel Sermon professeth That if that Pulpit was his dying Bed he would earnestly perswade them to have a care of total Separation from the Publick Worship of God Mr. Hickman freely declares I profess Bonasus vapulans p. 113. where-ever I come I make it my Business to reconcile People to the Publick Assemblies my Conscience would fly in my Face if I should do otherwise And Mr. Corbet as he did hold Communion with the Church of England so saith * * * Account of the Principles of the Non-conformists p. 26. That the Presbyterians generally frequent the Worship of God in the Publick †††Discourse of the Religion c. p. 33. V. Mr. Read's Case p. 15. Assemblies It 's evident then that it is their Principle and we may charitably believe it is their Practice in Conformity to it * * * Non-conformists Plea for Lay-Communion p. 1. Thus Mr. Corbet declares for himself I own Parish-Churches having a competent Minister and a number of credible Professors of Christianity for true Churches and the Worship therein performed as well in Common-Prayer as in the Preaching of the Word to be in the main sound and good for the Substance or Matter thereof And I may not disown the same in my Practice by a total neglect thereof for my Judgment and Practice ought to be concordant And if these two Judgment and Practice be not concordant it would be impossible to convince Men that they are in earnest or that they do believe themselves while they declare against Separation and yet do not keep it up Those good Men therefore were aware of this who met a little after the Plague and Fire to consider saith Mr. Baxter Non-conformists Plea fo◠Peace § 17◠p 240. whether our actual Forbearance to joyn with the Parish-Churches in the Sacrament and much more if it was total might not tend to deceive Men and make them believe that we were for Separation from them and took their Communion to be
is P. 4. The Case of Mixed Communion This is a On the Sacrament p. 235. Plea saith Mr. Vines that is plausible to easy Capacities because it pretends to set up Holiness of Ordinances and People but what the eminent Dissenters do utterly disclaim Mr. Vines saith it is Donatistical and others as Mr. Brinsley and Mr. Jenkin that it 's the common Brinsley's Arraignment p. 37 38. Jenk on Jude v. 19. Baily's Disswasive p. 22. Sacril desert p. 97. Plea or Pretence which for the most part hath been taken up by all Schismaticks in defence of their separation from the Church and therefore that it is necessary the People should be untaught it as Mr. Baxter doth advise And as they do disclaim it so they declare that those that separate upon this account do it very unjustly (a) (a) (a) Cawâ—rey's Reformation promoted p. 131. that the Scandals of Professors are ground of mourning but not of separation (b) (b) (b) Manton on Jude p. 496. that there may be a sufficient cause to cast out obstinate Sinners and yet not sufficient cause for one to leave the Church though such be not cast out (c) (c) (c) Vines on Sacrament p. 242 Platform c. 14. § 8. V. Cotton's Holiness of Church-Members p. 2. That the suffering of prophane and scanlous Livers to continue in the Church and partake in the Sacrament is doubtless a great Sin yet the Godly are not presently to separate from it There is saith Mr. Burroughs (d) (d) (d) Gospel-Worship Serm 11. p. 242. an error on both sides either those that think it concerns them not at all with whom they come to the Sacrament or those that if they do what they can to keep the Scandalous away and yet they should be suffered to come that they themselves may not come to partake of it This both the Presbyterians and Independents so far agree in and for this their Opinion they urge several Arguments First It 's no where commanded but is a vain Arg. 1 pretending to Holiness above Rule and Example saith On Sacrament p. 246. p. 31. Mr. Vines It 's no Duty as he elsewhere saith because there is no Command it 's no Duty and therefore we read not this word come forth in any of the Epistles written to the seven Churches against which Christ saith he hath such and such things They that lived in the Impurer are not called forth into the Purer but there are Promises made to them that keep themselves pure and Duties injoined them toward the impurer part For we may not make every Disease the Plague Shall the Sons of God the Angels forsake the Lord's Presence because Satan came also amongst them c. The Provincial Assembly of London doth affirm In the Vindicat. of Presbyt Govern p. 134. Brinsly's Arraign p. 47. Church of Corinth was such a profane mixture at the Sacrament as we believe few if any of our Congregations can be charged withal And yet the Apostle doth not perswade the Godly Party to Separate much less to gather V. Firmin's Separat examined p. 40. Cawdrey's Church-Reformat p. 71. a Church out of a Church From which Consideration Mr. Tombs concludes * * * Theodulia p. 74. Sure it can be no sin in any Person to join in the True Worship and Service of God with any if he have no command to withdraw himself from that Service because of their Presence nor Power to exclude them and yet is bound to the Duties there performed Nay they do not only plead that it 's not commanded but that it 's forbidden and unlawful So Mr. Hooker To separate from a Church because of the Survey of Discipline Pres A. 3. Platform c. 14. §. 9. Sin of some Worshippers is unlawful So the New-England Ministers do declare As separation from a Church wherein prophane and scandalous Livers are tolerated is not presently necessary So for the Members thereof otherwise worthy hereupon to abstain from Communion with such a Church in the participation of the Sacraments is unlawful Secondly They plead that the communicating in Arg. 2 God's Service with open Sinners whom the Godly in some of our Assemblies are enforced to communicate with is not sufficient to make such prophane Grave Confut. part 3. p. 53. or to pollute to them the Holy Things of God So the old Non-Conformists So Mr. Vines The presence On the Sacrament p. 242. p. 31 32. of wicked Men at God's Ordinances pollutes not them that are neither accessary to their Sin nor yet to their presence there This Mr. Burroughs disclaims Gospel-Worship Serm. 11. p. 236 237. You are not defiled by the meer presence of wicked Men in the Sacrament for that is a meer deceit and gull that some would put upon them that differ from them but thus are you defiled if you do not your Duty and the uttermost you are able to purge them out But if this be done according to the Power and Capacity Persons are in it 's universally granted that the Innocent shall not suffer for the Nocent So Mr. Ball The Precept of debarring scandalous Offenders Tryal c. 10. p. 191 205. bindeth them to whom God hath given this Power and them only so far as God hath put it in V. Jean's Discourse on the Lord's Supper Rutherford's right of Presbyt their Power But God regularly doth not leave that Power in the hand of one single Steward or some few private Christians And if the Steward or one or few private Christians cannot debar the unworthy from the Lord's Table it is manifest the Ordinance of God is not defiled to them by the presence of the Wicked whom they desire to reform or expel but cannot because Power is not in their hand to do it lawfully This they confirm 1. From the Examples of the Prophets and good Men who of old joined with Grave confut Part 3. p. 53 55. Ball 's Tryal p. 211. Platform c 14. § 8. Blake Vindic. p. 235. many that were notoriously stained with gross Sins from the practice of our Saviour that communicated with such in the publick Service of God from the practice of Christians in Apostolical Times all which the old Non-Conformists do insist upon This is also pleaded by those of New-England and others This would make all the Sins of the Congregation Christian Directory p. 747. V. Non-Conformists no Schismaticks p. 16. to be ours So Mr. Baxter If you be wanting in your Duty to reform it it is your Sin but if bare presence made their Sin to be ours it would also make all the Sins of the Assembly ours From all which it appears that their sense is that scandalous Members are no sufficient Reason for Separation for that must be either because it 's commanded in Scripture or that those that do communicate with such are in so doing corrupted also but if neither of these be then we may
for not separating the clean from the unclean the precious from the vile the Jer. 15. 16. Ezek. 22. 26. holy from the prophane yet did they never teach that because the unclean came into the Congregation through the neglect of their duty the whole Communion was polluted by it but as many as touch'd the unclean person were unclean so as many as have fellowship with the wicked in their sins are polluted by it to partake with men in their sins in a moral sense answers to the legal touching an unclean thing 3. When it 's said that the unclean person that did not purifie himself defiled the Tabernacle and polluted the Sanctuary the meaning is that he did so to himself but not to others so does a wicked man the Ordinances of God in respect of himself but not of others The Prayers of the wicked tho' joyn'd with those of the Church are an abomination unto God whilst at the same time the Prayers of good men go up as a sweet smelling savour and are accepted by him The person that comes unworthily to the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper eats and drinks Judgment to himself but that hinders not but that those who at the same time come better prepared may do it to their own Eternal Comfort and Salvation To the pure all things are pure but to them that are defil'd and unbelieving Tit. 1. 15. is nothing pure but even their Mind and Conscience is defil'd The weakness of this suggestion that the whole Communion and the Ordinances of God are polluted by the wicked Mans company at and among them being laid open The truth of the Proposition may be farther evinc'd from these particulars 1. From the example of God's People in the Church of the Jews We do not find that the sins either of the Priests or the People became at any time an occasion of separation to them What sins could be greater than those of Eli's Sons What higher aggravations could there be of sin Whether we consider the quality of the persons that sinn'd being the High-Priests Sons or the publick scandal aed impudence of the sin Lying with the women before the door of the Tabernacle yet did not the People of God not Elkanab and Hannah by name refrain to come up to Shilo and to joyn with them in the publick Worship Nay they are said to transgress who refus'd to come tho' they refus'd out of abhorance and detestation to the wickedness of 1 Sam. 2. 17. 24. those Men They abhorr'd the sacrifices of the Lord ye make the Lord's people to transgress In Ahab's time when almost all Israel were Idolaters and halted betwixt God and Baal yet then did the Prophet Elijah summon all Israel to appear on Mount Carmel and held a Religious Communion with them in Preaching and Praying and offering a Miraculous Sacrifice neither did the Seven Thousand that had kept themselves upright and not bowed their knee to Baal absent themselves because of the Idolatry of the rest but they all came and join'd in that publick Worship perform'd by the Prophet All the People fell on their faces saying the Lord he is God the Lord he is God 1 King 18. 39. All along the Old Testament when both Prince and Priests and People were very much deprav'd and debauch'd in their manners we do not find that the â—rophets at any time exhorted the faithful and sincere to separate or that they themselves set up any separate Meetings but continued in Communion with the Church Preaching to them and Exhorting them to Repentance 2. From the Example of God's People in the New Testament In the Apostolick Churches of Corinth Galatia and the seven Churches in Asia many of the Members were grown very bad and scandalous yet do we not read of the example of any good Man separating from the Church or any such Precept from the Apostles so to do They do not tell them that the whole Body was polluted by those filthy Members and that if they would be safe themselves they must withdraw from their Communion but exhort them to use all means to reclaim them and if neither private nor publick Admonitions and Reproofs would do then to suspend them from the Communion of the Church till by Repentance and Amendment they render'd themselves capable of being restored to Peace and Pardon The Spirit of God in the Second of the Revelation sends his Instructions to the Angels that is to the Bishops of those seven Churches in Asia whose Office it was to Preach Repentance to them and by their Authority to reform abuses but gives them no Command to cease the publick Administration or to advise the unpolluted part to separate from the rest nay altho' those Candlesticks were very foul yet was our Lord pleas'd still to bear with them and to walk in the midst of them Rev. 2. 1. and certainly so song as Christ affords his presence in a Church none of its Members ought to withdraw theirs 3. From our Saviour's own example who notwithanding the Church of the Jews in his time was a most corrupt Church and the Members of it very leud and vicious yet kept in Communion with it and commanded his Disciples so to do We read that the Scribes and Pharisees who rul'd the Ecclesiastical Chair at that time had perverted the law corrupted Mat. 15. 6 7 8. the worship of God were blind guides devoured widows houses were hypocrites and such as only had a form of godliness yet did not our Saviour separate from their Communion but was made under the Law freely subjected himself to all the Rites and Ceremonies of it he was circumcis'd on the eighth day redeem'd by a certain price being a Son and a First-born Luke 2. 22. observ'd their Passover and other Feasts enjoin'd by their Law yea and that of the dedication too tho' Matth. 26. but of humane institution was baptiz'd amongst them preach'd in their Temples and Synagogues reason'd John 17. 37. with them about Religion exhorted his Disciples to hear their Doctrine tho' not to follow their Practice John 10. 6 7. Mat. 6. 7. What greater cause on the account of cortuption in manners could be given to separate from a Church than was here yet how careful was our Saviour both by his Example and Precept to forbid and discountenance it They fit in Moses 's chair hear them 4. From the Apostle's express command to hold communion with the Church of Corinth notwithstanding the many and great immoralities that were amongst the Members of it There were Schisms 1 Cor. 1. 12 13. 1 Cor. 3. 3. 1 Cor. 5. 1. and contentions amongst them strifes and envyings fornication and incest eating at the Idols table and coming not so soberly as became them to the table of our Lord yet does the Apostle not only not command them to separate but approves their meeting together and exhorts them to continue it But let 1 Cor. 5. 4.
do appear that all Men do agree in their Notions and Sense about this matter That without doubt which they all thus agree in is the true Notion and Sense of Conscience Now as to this we may oberve in the first Place that a Man never speaks of his Conscience but with respect to his own Actions or to something that hath the Nature of an Action which is done or omitted by him or is to be done or omitted Matters of meer Knowledg and Speculation we do not concern our Conscience with as neither with those things in which we are purely Passive as neither with Actions if they be not our own We do not for instance make it a Point of Conscience one way or other whether a thing be true or false or whether this or the other Accident that befals us be prosperous or unfortunate or whether another Man hath done good or bad Actions in which we are no way concerned These kind of things may indeed prove matters of great Satisfaction or Disquiet of Joy or Grief to us But we do not take our Conscience to be affected with them That word never comes in but with respect to something willingly done or left undone by us or which we may do or may forbear Secondly we may observe that in Common Speech we do not neither use this word Conscience about our Actions but only so far as those Actions fall under a Moral consideration that is as they have the Nature of Duties or Sins or as they are Lawful or Vnlawful Always when we speak of Conscience in our Actions we have respect to some Law or Rule by which those Actions are to be directed and govern'd and by their agreeableness or disagreeableness with which they become morally Good or Evil. Thirdly this being so the only thing remaining to be enquired into for the finding out what Conscience is is what can be reasonably thought to be our Sense and meaning when we use the word Conscience with such Application to our Actions as we have now said Now for that I desire it may be considered that when we talk of our Actions as we concern our Conscience in them they can but fall under these two Heads of Distinction that is to say in the first place we either consider our Actions as already done or omitted or we consider them as yet not done but as we are deliberating about them And then Secondly whether we consider them as done or not done as past or future yet we Rank them under one of these three Notions We either look upon them as Commanded by God and so to be Duties or as forbidden by God and so to be Sins or as neither Commanded nor forbidden and so to be indifferent Actions With these last Actions indeed Conscience is not properly or directly concerned but only by accident to wit as those indifferent Actions do approach to the Nature of Duties or Sins Our Actions I say do not touch our Conscience but as they fall under some of these Heads Now in all these Respects we have indeed different ways of bringing in Conscience but yet as it will appear we mean the same thing by it in them all First of all when we are considering an Action as yet not done if we look upon it as Commanded by God we say we are bound in Conscience to do it if we look upon it as a Sinful Action we say it is against our Conscience to do it if we look upon it as an indifferent thing we say we may do it or not do it with a Safe Conscience Now I pray what do we mean by these expressions I desire that every one would consult his own Mind and deny if he can that this is the Sense of his words If he saith he is bound in Conscience to do this or the other thing whether he doth not mean this that he verily thinks it is his Duty to do that Action If he saith that it is against his Conscience to do such an Action whether he means any more than this that he is perswaded in his Judgment that to do such an Action is an Offence against God If he saith that he can do it with a Safe Conscience whether he hath any other meaning than this that to the best of his Knowledg and Judgment the Action may be done without Transgressing any Law of God This is now undeniably the Sense that every Man in the World hath when he makes mention of Conscience as to Actions that are not yet done but only proposed to his Consideration So that taking Conscience as it respects our Actions to be done or omitted and as it is to Govern and Conduct them in which Sense we call Conscience a Guide or a Monitor and sometimes though very improperly a Rule of our Actions it can be nothing else in the Sense of all Men that use that word but a Mans Judgment concerning the goodness or badness the Lawfulness or Unlawfulness of Actions in order to the Conduct of his own Life But Secondly if we speak of our Actions that are done and past and consider Conscience with Reference to them here indeed we do a little vary the Expression about Conscience but the Notion of it is the same we have now given As for instance when we talk of Peace of Conscience or Trouble of Conscience with Reference to some Action we have done or omitted when we say My Conscience bears me Witness that I have Acted rightly and honestly in this Affair or my Conscience acquits me from blame as to this or the other Action or I am troubled in Conscience for doing what I have done If we turn these Phrases into other words we shall find that there is nothing more at the bottom of them than this that reflecting upon our own Actions we find that in this or the other instance we have either Acted or omitted as we are convinced in our Judgment we ought to do and the remembrance of this is some Pleasure and Satisfaction to us or we have done or forborn something contrary to what we take to be our Duty and the remembrance of this affects us with grief and trouble But still in both these instances of Expression that which we mean by Conscience is the same thing as in the former Cases viz. It is our Judgment and Perswasion concerning what we ought to do or ought not to do or Lawfully may do only here we add to it this Consideration that the Action which we are perswaded to be good or bad or indifferent is now done or omitted by us and we do remember it In the Former Case Conscience was considered as the Guide of our Actions In the latter Case it is considered as the Witness of our Actions But in both Cases Conscience is the Judge and consequently in both Cases the Notion of it is the same only with this difference that in the former it was a Mans mind making a Judgment what he ought
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
forbidden it So that in all doubtful Cases where a man apprehends no danger of transgressing Gods Law whether he doth the Action he doubts about or doth it not there his Conscience is not properly concerned And this is so true that though we should suppose one side of the Action in question to be really all things considered more expedient and more eligible than the other yet so long as we are satisfied that we may without breach of Gods Law chuse either side we are not concern'd in Conscience to chuse that side which is the most expedient or the most eligible For the truth of this besides the reason of the thing we have the authority of St. Paul who when this Case was proposed to him Whether it was better for the Christians in those times to marry or not to marry he thus resolves it That though indeed as things then stood it was better not to marry yet they might do what they would for if they did marry they sinned not and though as he saith he that gave not his Virgin in marriage did better than he that gave her in marriage yet he allowes that he that gave her in marriage did well and consequently did act with a good Conscience Vid. 1 Cor. 7. 3. From what hath been said we may be able to give a clear account of the Nature of a Doubting Conscience and to distinguish it from the other sorts of Conscience particularly that which they call the Scrupulous which is our Third Point under this Head Conscience is usually though how properly I will not now dispute distributed into these three Kinds the Resolved the Scrupulous and the Doubting When we speak of a Resolved Conscience every body knows that we mean no more by that Phrase than this that a man is satisfied and resolved in his own Mind concerning the action he hath been deliberating upon viz. that he is bound to do it as being a Duty or that he is bound to forbear it as being a Sin or that he may either do it or forbear it as being an Indifferent action neither commanded nor forbidden by God Now this Perswasion if it be according to the Rule of the Divine Law we call it a Right Conscience If it be contrary to that Rule we call it an Erroneous Conscience But of this we need speak no more here since it was the whole argument of the former Discouse As for the Scrupulous Conscience as that is made a distinct sort of Conscience from the Resolved and the Doubting we may thus define it It is a Conscience in some measure resolved but yet accompanied with a Fear of acting according to that Resolution It is the unhappiness of a great many that when they are pretty well satisfied in their Judgment concerning this or the other Point which they made a Matter of Conscience and have nothing considerable to Object against the Evidence that is given them but on the contrary are convinced that they ought or that they may lawfully Act thus or thus Yet for all that when they come to act they are very uneasie and make a World of Difficulties Not that there is any new Reason appears that can pretend to unsettle much less overthrow the Grounds of their first Determination But only their unaccountable Fears must pass for Reasons This now is to have a Scrupulous Conscience in the proper Sense But a Doubting Conscience which is that we are now concerned in though in Common Speech it be often confounded with the Scrupulous is quite different from both these sorts of Conscience For in both those a man is supposed to have passed a Judgment in his own Mind whether the Action before him be according to Gods Law or against it But in the Case of a Doubting Conscience it appears from what I have said that a man hath not nor cannot so long as he doubts make any Judgment at all but is uncertain as to both sides having as he thinks as many Arguments to incline him one way as the other and when once he comes to have so much Evidence as to create a Perswasion or Opinion on one side then he ceaseth to have a Doubting Conscience So that the True Definition of a Doubting Conscience as it is commonly called is this The Suspence of a mans Judgment in a Question about the Duty or the Sin of an Action occasioned by the Equal or near Equal Probalities on both sides And likewise the true Difference between a Doubting a Resolved and a Scrupulous Conscience is this That the Resolved Conscience is satisfied about its Point and acts confidently at least chearfully The Scrupulous Conscience is likewise satisfied in the general but either dares not act or acts fearfully The Doubting Conscience is not satisfied at all for the Point before it is still a Question of which it can make no Judgment no Resolution because of the equal appearances of Reason on both sides This is a plain account of the Doubting Conscience But after all it must be acknowledged that this which we call a Doubting Conscience and which we have been all this while discoursing of is truly and strictly speaking so far from being any particular sort or kind of Conscience as we have hitherto supposed it that it is no Conscience at all Conscience as we have often said is a Mans Mind making a Judgment about the Morality of his Actions But that which we are now talking of is a mans Mind making no Judgment as to that Point but continuing wavering and undetermined Now how a mans Judgment and his no Judgment which are the Contradictories to one another should agree in the same Common Nature of Conscience is not easie to be understood The Truth is by the same Logick or propriety of Speech that we say a Doubting Conscience we may also if we please say an unresolved Resolution or a Perswasion without an Assent But however because Use hath given the Name of Conscience to the Doubting Mind and because Conscience is sometimes really concerned about Acting in Doubtful Cases I chuse to follow the common way of speaking II. I now proceed to our Second general Head which is concerning the Rule of a Doubting Conscience In speaking to this I shall do these two things viz. I shall shew First What kind of Rule we here speak of that is which Conscience needs in a Doubtful Case Secondly What that Rule is or wherein it doth consist 1. As to the first of these When we speak of the Rule of a Doubting Conscience we do not mean such a Rule by which a man shall be enabled to resolve all his Doubts concerning every Point so as that he shall cease to doubt any longer concerning that Point But we mean only such a Rule by which a man may be directed how to determine himself in every Doubtful Case so as to act with a safe Conscience whether he can get rid of his Doubts or not There is just as much difference
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
doth not like or approve of it he hath some little Reasons and Exceptions against it it is not the best and fittest all things considered This is properly a Scruple and is certainly the case of all those who do sometimes to save themselves from the severity of the Laws joyn in our Worship and communicate with us which we presume they would never do did they judge it absolutely sinful and forbidden by God So that though it should be granted that a man cannot innocently do that of which his Conscience doubts whether it be lawful or not yet a Man may and in some cases is bound to do that which is not unlawful though upon some other Accounts he scruples the doing of it 2. If the Question be about things wherein we are left wholly to our selves and at Liberty having no very weighty Reason for the doing of them then it may be the safest way to forbear all such things we scruple at Of such cases the Apostle speaks in the fore-mentioned Places of eating or not eating some Meats neither of them was required by any Law Eating was no instance of Duty nor was it any ways forbid Christians where to do or not to do is perfectly at our own choice it is best for a Man to forbear doing that of which he hath some suspicion tho he be not sure that it is sinful As suppose a man have Scruples in his Mind about playing at Cards and Dice or going to see Stage-Plays or putting out his Money to Usury because there is no great Reason or Necessity for any of these things and to be sure they may be innocently forborn without any Detriment to our selves or others though we do not judge them absolutely sinful yet it is safest for him who cannot satisfie himself concerning the Goodness and Fitness of them wholly to deny himself the use of them But in these two cases it is most for the quiet of our Consciences to act against or notwithstanding our Fears and Scruples when either our Superiours to whom we owe Obedience have interposed their Commands or when by it we prevent some great Evil or Mischief 1. When our Superiours either Civil or Ecclesiastical whom by the Will of God we are bound to obey in all lawful things have interposed their Commands our Scruples will not excuse or justifie our Disobedience If indeed we judge what is commanded to be absolutely unlawful tho it be a false erroneous Judgment yet whilst we are under such persuasion we are by no means to do it upon any Inducement whatever If I only doubt of the lawfulness of any particular Action and it be an instance wherein I am at liberty I am still bound not to do it For Whatsoever is not of Faith is Sin I am certainly innocent when I forbear I may commit a Sin If I do it Wisdom would therefore that the safer part be chosen But now if I am by the command of my Superiours obliged to it my choice is then determined it then becomes my Duty and it can never be safe or advisable to neglect a plain Duty for an uncertain Offence Thus most and best Casuists do determine about a doubtful Conscience particularly the forenamed reverend Bishop in the same Sermon Whatsoever is commanded us by those whom God hath set over us either in Church Commonwealth or Family quod tamen not sit certum displicere Deo saith St. Bernard which is not evidently contrary to the Law and Will of God ought to be of us received and obeyed no otherwise than as if God himself had commanded it because God himself hath commanded us to obey the Higher Powers and to submit our selves to their Ordinances But now this is more plain concerning Fears and Scruples only about the conveniency and expediency of things these ought all to be despised when they come in Competition with the Duty of Obedience Would men but think themselves in Conscience bound to pay the same Duty and respect to the Judgment and Authority of Magistrates and Governours whether in Church or State as they do expect their Servants and Children should to themselves they would soon see the reasonableness of such submission For all Government and Subjection would be very precarious and arbitrary if every one that did not approve of a Law or was not fully satisfied about the reasonableness of it was thereby exempted from all Obligations to obey it This is to give the Supreme Authority to the most humoursome or perverse sort of Christians for according to this principle no publick Laws and Constitutions can be valid and binding unless every scrupulous tho a very ignorant Conscience consent to them 2. We are not to mind or stand upon our Scruples when they probably occasion a great evil a general mischief They are not fit to be put in the balance with the Peace of the Church and Unity of Christians Suppose for once that our publick way of Worship is not the best that can be devised that many things might be amended in our Liturgy that we could invent a more agreeable Establishment than this present is which yet no man in the World can ever tell for we cannot know all the inconveniences of any Alteration till it comes to be tryed yet granting all this it cannot be thought so intolerable an Evil as contempt of God's Solemn Worship dividing into Sects and Parties living in Debate Contention and Separation from one another If there be some Rites and Customs amongst us not wisely chosen or determined some Ceremonies against which just Exceptions may be made yet to forsake the Communion of such a true Church of Jesus Christ and set up a distinct Altar in opposition to it to combine and associate into separate Congregations is as it is somewhere expressed like knocking a man on the head because his Teeth are rotten or his Nails too long How much more agreeable is it to the Christian Temper to be willing to sacrifice all such Doubts and Scruples to the Interests of publick Order and divine Charity for better surely it is to serve God in a defective imperfect manner to bear with many Disorders and Faults than to break the Bond of Peace and brotherly Communion For this we have the Example of our Blessed Lord and Saviour who lived and died in Communion with a Church where there were far greater Corruptions both as to Persons and Practises than can be pretended to be in ours at this day yet though he was the great Reformer of Mankind he forsook not the Jewish Church but assembled with them in their publick Synagogues which answer to our Parish-Churches preached in the Temple though they had made it a Den of Thieves observed their Festivals tho some of them of humane Institution nay commanded his Disciples to continue to hear the Scribes and Pharisees tho they were a most vile and wretched Generation of Men. Great were the Pollutions and Misdemeanours in the Churches of Rome Corinth
for fear of Offence and again in the same place Hic Charitatis rationem haberi decet sed usque ad aras Our charity to our Brother ought to be limited by this that we do not for his sake displease God The very best things and actions may be perverted by Men of ill-disposed or weak minds false consequences and unjust inferences may be strained from them as we know the grace of God in the Gospel was abused into an argument for licentiousness and Christ himself is said to be set for the fall of many St. Luke 2. 24. but still this doth not Cancel our obligations to universal obedience to Gods Law nor can it alter the nature of good and evil duty and sin which are no such uncertain contingent things as to depend upon the constructions others shall make of our actions or the conclusions they shall draw from them God Almighty in the making of his Laws hath a perfect comprehension of all the accidental events that may happen either through the weakness or wickedness of Men and we must not think our selves to be wiser than God taking upon our selves to dispense with his Commands without any allowance from him as if himself had not foreseen those inconveniences which may arise from our doing our duty it can therefore never be that obedience to God should give any real Scandal and whatever Offence may be taken at my doing of my duty it is a contradiction to imagine it imputable to me as a sin or fault for it is to suppose one to disobey God in obeying him but they alone are chargeable who are Offended by it Now by the express Command of God we are obliged to obey the lawful injunctions of our Superiours whether Civil or Ecclesiastical and if any are so hardy as to deny this they must seek for another Bible out of which to judge of Gods will for there is hardly any one duty of Religion more plainly Commanded more frequently and earnestly pressed in the New Testament than quiet and peaceable subjection to Authority both in Church and State in all things lawful and that not only to avoid punishment but for Conscience sake and to refuse obedience in such things is a sin against the fifth Commandment That the Conformity required by our Church contains not any thing in it unlawful must be granted as I have already observed by all those who make use of this Plea of Scandal from all which the necessary Conclusion is Since we may not redeem a Scandal by disobedience to God since God hath plainly required our submission to those whom he hath set over us in all things lawful since it is acknowledged by those I now discourse with that Conformity to the Church is enjoyned by a competent Authority and is lawful I say the necessary conclusion is that no Man can with a good Conscience refuse to conform only for fear of Scandal Our Dissenting Brethren when they are urged with this Argument neither do nor can deny any of the Premises they must confess that no sin may be committed upon any account whatsoever and that a Man is not bound to provide for his Brothers safety by wounding his own Soul they cannot deny but that God hath Commanded us to be subject to Lawful Authority in all things lawful but then to evade the force of this reasoning they have endeavoured to load the conclusion with some seeming difficulties and absurdities which they pretend follow from this principle that we are bound to obey notwithstanding the Scandal that may ensue upon it The chief of these I shall mention and briefly return an Answer to them 1. It is pleaded that those precepts which contain only rituals are to give place to those which do concern the welfare of Mens Bodies and much more to those which do respect the welfare of our Brothers Soul so that when both together cannot be observed we must neglect or violate the former to observe the latter That this is true even of some Commands given by God himself to which purpose our Saviour doth produce that saying of the Prophet Hosea I will have Mercy and not Sacrifice Now if Sacrifices prescribed by God himself which were so considerable a part of the Divine Worship under Moses's Law yet were to give place to acts of mercy how much more are the positive injunctions of Men that concern only the externals and circumstantials of Religion to yield to the Royal and indispensable Law of Charity of which this duty of not giving Offence to others is such an Eminent part Thus saith Mr. Jeans in his Second Part of Scholastical Divinity What Laws of any Earthly Wight whatsoever concerning Ceremonies can be more obligatory than the Commands of God touching the externals of his Worship and Service and yet it is his will and pleasure that these externals of his Worship should be laid aside for the performance of outward works of mercy If therefore the sacred Ordinances of God are to give way unto works of mercy unto the bodies of Men surely then much more is the trash of human inventions to yield unto a work of mercy to the Souls of Men. In answer to this it is readily acknowledged that when there doth happen any such interfering between two Commands of God the one Positive the other Moral the Positive ought always to give place to the Moral and by the same reason the positive Commands of our Superiours ought certainly to give way to the Moral Commands of God which are of eternal and immutable obligation They cease to bind us either in case of absolute necessity or when they plainly hinder our performance of any Moral duty to God or our Neighbour and the Church is presumed to dispense with its orders as God Almighty doth allow the neglect of his own positive Institutions in such circumstances But then this is only where the necessity is urgent and extream the sin we must otherwise commit evident and certain and at last our Obedience is dispensed withal only for that one time Thus in a case of necessity Our Saviour St. Matth. 12. 5. acquits David and his followers of all blame who being ready to perish for hunger did eat of the Shewbread which otherwise was not lawful for them to eat but had they taken a particular fancy to that Bread and refused to have eaten of any other because that best agreed with their Stomacks and was most pleasing to their Palate can we think our Saviour would have so easily excused them Or which is nearer to our Case because God did prefer acts of Mercy before Sacrifices where both could not be done yet this would not have justified any mans wholly leaving off Sacrificing or refusing to do it at Jerusalem inventing another way of Worship as more expedient than Sacrificing or choosing another place to Sacrifice in which might be more convenient for all the Jews than that City was We may leave our Prayers forsake the Church to save
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
full of Comfort as more largely is expressed in the Homily of Justification As to the Doctrine of Supererogation this is confuted Article 14. Voluntary Works besides over and above Gods Commandments which they call Works of Supererogation cannot be taught without Arrogance and Impiety For by them Men do declare that they do not only render unto God as much as they are bound to do but that they do more for his sake than of bounden duty is required whereas Christ saith plainly When ye have done all that are Commanded to you say We are unprofitable Servants As to making simple Fornication a meer Venial sin Our Church will endure no such Doctrine For as in the Litany she calls Fornication expresly a deadly sin so hath it ever been accounted in Our Church one of the most deadly even considered as distinct from Adultery As to the Church of Romes Damning all that are not of her Communion the Church of England is guilty of no uncharitableness like it and never pronounced so sad a sentence against those in Communion with the Church of Rome as great a detestation as she expresseth in the Homilies especially of her Idolatrous and Wicked Principles and Practices She is satisfied to Condemn the gross Corruptions of that Apostate Church and leaves her Members to stand or fall to their own Master nor takes upon her to Vnchurch her And as to the remaining most Immoral Principles and Practices of the Romish Church which are all as contrary to Natural as to revealed Religion the greatest Enemies Our Church hath cannot surely have the forehead to charge her with giving the least countenance to any such There being no Church in Christendom that more severely Condemns all instances of Unrighteousness and Immorality Thirdly The Church of England is at a mighty distance from the Church of Rome in reference to their Publick Prayers and Offices Whereas our Liturgy hath been by many Condemned as greatly resembling the Mass-Book all that have compared them do know the contrary and that there is a vast difference between them both as to matter and form Although some few of the same Prayers are found in both and three or four of the same Rites of which more hereafter To shew this throughout in the particulars would be a very long and tedious task I will therefore single out the Order of Administration of Infant-Baptism as we have it in the Roman Ritual and desire the Reader to compare it with that in our Liturgy and by this take a measure of the likeness between our Liturgy and the Mass-Book c. there being no greater agreement between the Morning and Evening Services and the other Offices of each than is between these two excepting that besides the Lords Prayer there is no Prayer belonging to the Popish Office of Baptism to be met with in ours For the sake of the Readers who understand no more of the Language that the Popish Prayers and Offices are expressed in than the generality of those that make use of them take the following account of the Popish Admonistration of Infant-Baptism in our own Tongue To pass by the long Bedroul of Preparatory Prescriptions the Priest being drest in a Surplice and Purple Robe calls the Infant to be Baptized by his Name and saith What askest thou of the Church of God the God-Father answers Faith The Priest saith again What shalt thou get by Faith The God-Father replies Eternal Life Then adds the Priest If therefore thou wilt enter into Life keep the Commandments Thou shalt Love the Lord thy God with all thine heart c. and thy Neighbour as thy self Next the Priest blows three gentle puffs upon the Infants face and saith as if we come all into the World possessed by the Devil Go out of him O unclean Spirit and give place to the Holy Ghost the Comforter Then with his Thumb he makes the Sign of the Cross on the Infants Forehead and Breast saying Receive the Sign of the Cross both in thy Forehead and in thy heart Take the Faith of the Heavenly Precepts and be thy manners such as that thou maist now become the Temple of God After this follows a Prayer that God would always protect this his Elect one calling him by his Name that is Signed with the Sign of the Cross c. And after a longer Prayer the Priest laying his hand on the Infants head comes the Benediction of Salt of which this is the Form I exorcize or conjure thee O Creature of Salt in the Name of God the Father Almighty ✚ and in the Love of our Lord Jesus Christ ✚ and in the Power of the Holy Ghost ✚ I conjure thee by the Living God ✚ by the true God ✚ by the Holy God ✚ by the God ✚ which Created thee for the safeguard of Mankind and hath ordained that thou shouldest be consecrated by his Servants to the People entring into the Faith that in the Name of the Holy Trinity thou shouldest be made a wholesome Sacrament for the driving away of the Enemy Moreover we Pray thee O Lord our God that in Sanctifying thou wouldest Sanctifie ✚ this Creature of Salt and in Blessing thou wouldest Bless it ✚ that it may be to all that receive it a perfect Medicine remaining in their Bowels in the Name of the same Jesus Christ our Lord who is about to come to judge the quick and dead and the World by fire Amen This Idle and prophane Form being recited the Priest proceeds in his Work with the poor Infant and next putting a little of this Holy Salt into his mouth he calls him by his Name and saith Take thou the Salt of Wisdom and adds most impiously be it thy propitiation unto Eternal Life Amen This ended with the Pax tecum God Almighty is next mockt with a Prayer That this Infant who hath tasted this first food of Salt may not be suffered any more to hunger but may be filled with Celestial Food c. Now follows another Exorcising of the Devil wherein he is conjured as before and most wofully becalled And next the Priest Signs the Infant again with his Thumb on the Forehead saying And this Sign of the Holy Cross ✚ which we give to his Forehead thou Cursed Devil never dare thou to Violate By the same Jesus Christ our Lord Amen And now after all this tedious expectation we see some Sign of Baptism approaching for the Priest puts his hand again on the Infants head and puts up a very good Prayer for him in order to his Baptism The Prayer being ended he puts part of his Robe upon the Infant and brings him within the Church for he hath been without all this while saying calling him by his Name Enter thou into the Temple of God that thou mayest partake with Christ in Eternal Life Amen Then follow the Apostles Creed and the Pater Noster But after all this here 's more exercise for our Patience for the Priest falls to his fooling
is with his Method his Stile his way of Reasoning and Discourse as well as accustomed to his Voice which you cannot be in an instant or at the first hearing For the Scriptures themselves are obscure and difficult to the best of us in abundance of places till by Conversation with them we grow acquainted with their Phrase manner of Speaking Arguing and Connexion And if God's Word had been generally used as some among us have treated his Ministers rejecting them I mean because they did not presently apprehend them it had been thrown out of all mens hands long ago as an unprofitable piece 3. Quest I desire such further to examine seriously and recollect themselves Whether the thing that made them first forsake our Ministry as unprofitable was not That when they came to Church the Preacher hapned to treat on some Subject cross to their Opinion Which hasty Persons who consider not what different Apprehensions men may have in many matters and yet agree well enough together cannot brook but presently fling away from those that contradict them as if they contradicted God himself Whereas if they would have had Patience they might have profited even by such Discourses either by being convinced of their Error or more confirmed in that which they took for truth being able to answer the Arguments brought against it 4. Quest But that which is worse than this the Minister was perhaps upon some distastful Subject when you chanced to go to Church and hapned to treat of such matters as you love not to hear of though more necessary it may be than many others for this very Reason that because of their Ungratefulness they are seldom handled Will you not be angry nor lay aside this Paper and read no further if I give an Instance or two Which I mentioned for no other Reason but because I know some have taken offence as they call it at such Doctrines and ought if it be possible to be better taught Was he not preaching I mean about Schism or Disobedience to Governours It is certain there are such Sins which are very heinous and dangerous every way and therefore no faithful Servant of Jesus Christ can with a good Conscience balk the treating of them some time or other And suppose he that treated of them when you was at Church extended the Duties of Vnity and of Obedience further than you desire might not you for all that have profited very much by what was said upon those Subjects I beleive sober Men among you have heard some of your own Ministers speak harder Words of Conformity and Conformists than you would have had them and yet you did not for that Reason leave them but still fancied you could profit by them even by what they said on that Subject of Conformity And therefore you would do well to search and try what account you can give of taking such distaste at the established Ministry as to forsake it upon their pressing some things which are most certainly Christian Duties with greater strictness than agreed with your present Inclinations And I the rather beseech you to consider such things as these because it is a common thing to hear Men and Women of your way to complain of their Vnprofitableness under Ordinances of the Deadness of their Heart in Duty and their Barrenness under the most powerful means of Grace which arises perhaps in those minds that are well inclined merely from a natural Dullness or Indisposition which makes them unable to attend or to remember and keep in mind as they desire what they have heard and therefore moral Indispositions such as Prejudice Passion Disaffection to the way of Worship or to any Christian Doctrine will much more make men unapt to receive any Impressions from what is said to them though in it self never so good and fitted powerfully to affect the Heart were it but entertained with an honest Mind So that if you complain of Deadness and Unprofitableness under the Ministry of our Church it is no more than a great many of you do of the like Barrenness under your own but proceeding it is to be feared from a worse Cause of which in Reason you should suspect your selves to be guilty rather than conclude so suddenly as you do our Ministry to be unedifying V. The very same may be said to those who fancy that though they can profit something by our Ministry yet they can profit more by others They ought in Conscience to examine whence this Conceit ariseth whether it do not proceed from Prejudice from Disaffection from Disgust at some Doctrine which they love not should be touched from their seldom attendance upon the establish'd Ministry from their careless hearing when they were there or from the hasty Sentence they pronounced against it before a sufficient Tryal And withal they should consider what they mean by profiting whether really and truly they are not more earnestly pressed in our Congregations to be thoroughly good and vertuous to take a strict care to please God in Thought Word and Dred than they are in those where they imagine they profit more because they are entertained there perchance with more pleasing Subjects than this of their whole Christian Duty I only suggest this as a thing to be most deeply pondered and do not accuse you to be guilty of such Falseness to your own Souls but this I must say That if you do not grow more holy harmless and unreproveable in your common Conversation if your Passions be not better governed if your Tongues be not more strictly bridled if you grow not more humble less conceited of your selves less confident of your own Understandings more fearful to offend God by censuring rash Judging disrespectful Behaviour to your Betters and Superiours and such like things you do but deceive your selves with an Opinion of profiting more by the Non-conforming Ministry than by ours Upon which if you would attend with a Mind to improve in these great things I am well assured your profiting might appear to all men as well as to your selves who might be convinced in a little time there is no need to go any whither else for such Edification And if you go for any other there will be no end of seeking still for better entertainment of your Fancies and Itching Ears which will desire to be gratified with infinite variety The mischief of which they of your own way have felt and complained of as much as we and the better any of them have been the more careful have they appeared in giving Cautions against this wanton humour though pretending never so much to Religion and to growth in Grace or Soul-saving knowledg In the days of your Fore-fathers I am sure they who could not in all things conform to the Church of England lookt upon this as a dangerous principle that men must go where they can profit most And because it is likely that the Opinion of a grave and serious person highly esteemed by