a man hath broken the Law and therefore cannot be a direct and absolute precept of the Law I say a direct or absolute precept of the Law in its prime intention Repentance is not But a consequent hypothetical indirect precept it is of a second intention That is upon supposition a man hath once transgressed the Law he is implicitly bound by the same Law to repent as Repentance signifies a cessation from sin and a return to the duty of obedience Otherwise a man might be discharged from the obligation of the Law by breaking it Rom. 4. 1 Joh. 3. And then he that had sinned once could sin no more because where there is no Law there is no transgression But that Law that binds a man to perpetual obedience doth not only bind a man from sinning once but supposing that he hath done so it must needs oblige him to cease from continuing in his sin But properly and directly Repentance is a precept of the Gospel directed to the transgressors of the Law as a remedy for the breach of it and a condition of pardon not allowed by the Original Law And therefore it is not a precept only but a priviledg peculiar to the Gospel being a gracious dispensation and mitigation of the rigour of the Law Act. 11.18 God hath granted to the Gentiles repentance unto life That a sinner upon his repentance through Faith in a Mediator that hath expiated his sins should obtain remission of his sin and be discharged from the penalty of the Law is a new grant grace and priviledg of the second Covenant The difference therefore between the first and second Covenant lies not in the common sense of those general terms Do this and live as if the second Covenant required nothing at all to be done which is contrary to our Text and all those which have been alledged for the explication thereof but partly in the special signification of the Word this and partly in a gracious promise of Grace sufficient to enable a man to perform what ever is to be understood by that word this which cannot be so interpreted as to signifie the same thing in reference to both Covenants Because though something be required to be done as a Condition of the new Covenant as well as of the old yet not the same For something was required in the old which is not in the new and something is required in the new which was not in the old and something is required in both For instance The old Covenant indispensably required perfect innocence in an entire fulfilling the whole Law written in the heart of man or declared or to be declared by divine Revelations leaving no place for any such thing as Repentance to be admitted for a Remedy of Sin But this perfect Innocence is so far from being required in the new Covenant as the very Supposition of it prevents and destroyes the end and design of the New which imports a plain contradiction to such sinless innocence In as much as the new Covenant is nothing else but a Remedy provided by the grace of God for the want of such innocence Were it possible to perform the condition of the old Covenant the new could have no place because that supposeth a man a transgressor of the old And if now it were possible for any man to obey the whole Law without any new transgression yet he that is already a sinner Rom. 5.18 19. as all men are by the first transgression could not be saved by that Covenant because his being so renders him incapable of pleading performance of the Condition thereof This therefore is a main difference between the two Covenants The first exacts perfect Obedience and Innocence the second admits Repentance A second difference of these Covenants is in the first and principal Article of the new Covenant which is consigned upon the Condition of Faith in Jesus Christ as a Saviour to save us from our Sins Which also imports a plain Repugnance to the Condition of the first in as much as it implies a violation of it Faith in a Saviour to save us from our Sins could be no precept of the old Covenant because that doth neither declare nor admit any such Saviour These are two main things whereby the two Covenants are distinguished in their Conditions and it is not requisite in this place to name any more But with these Differences there is also something common to both and that is the general Obligation of Obedience to the Commandments according to the express words of our Saviour before alledged If thou wilt enter into Life keep the Commandments And this I take to be a duty of such necessity as could not be discharged or dispensed with by any positive Will or Covenant of God upon any Consideration whatsoever No not upon that of a most perfect satisfaction for the breach of the Law with an intire fulfilling of it by a Surety for and in the stead of the Transgressors I say that neither upon this nor any other Consideration the Duty of Obedience to the Moral Law of God could be discharged or dispensed with For these Reasons 1. Because such a discharge or dispensation is contrary to the Soveraignty of God which importeth an Authority to command all Creatures that are capable of receiving and obeying any commands This Authority being essential to the Divine Nature He cannot devest himself of by any positive Will no more than he can destroy his own Essence But to discharge a Creature capable of the duty of Obedience from all obligation thereunto were to put off that Authority because Where there is no obligation to obedience there can be no authority to command If therefore God should discharge a Creature of his duty of Obeying his Commands he should thereby quit his Soveraignty over that Creature which is altogether impossible 2. Because such a liberty granted to any part of mankind is contrary to the Justice and Holiness of God in as much as it implies a licence and toleration of the utmost wickedness that could be committed by them that had obtain'd this liberty For where there is no restraint put upon the wills of men by any binding law there must needs be the utmost of license 3. Because this Liberty is contrary to the nature of Man as he is a Reasonable Creature Because as he is reasonable he is capable of receiving Commands and Laws from his Creator and as he is a Creature he is naturally bound to be subject to them The relation of a Creature naturally importing such a debt of subjection to the Creator as can never be discharged 4. And lastly Because there are some Divine Laws which are in themselves indispensable to a reasonable Creature Such is that which is commonly called the Moral Law in the strictest sense signifying not all Precepts that concern the manners of men but the same thing with the Law of Nature and right Reason Which as it teacheth a distinction
of Good and Evil contained in the nature of some actions antecedent to any positive or express Law of God or man so doth it indispensably oblige to the practical observation thereof 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 This is that effect of the Law written in the Heart Rom. 2.15 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which cannot be blotted out by any abrogation without blotting out the reason that is the nature of man That which is in it self Evil cannot without contradiction become indifferent or lawful But that which is not restrained or forbidden by any binding Law must needs be lawful Therefore the opinion of Libertines and Antinomians affirming Christians under the Gospel to be discharged from the duty of Obedience to any Law or Command of God as such is not only false and heretical but also impossible to be true in as much as it imports a repugnancy to the nature both of God and man and all distinction of Good and Evil and withall it evacuates all pardon of sin by concluding an impossibility of committing it For where no Law is there can be no Transgression I conclude therefore that the duty of Obedience to the Moral Law is common to both Covenants And that when Saint Paul saith We are not under the Law but under Grace Rom. 6.15 his meaning cannot be that we are not under any Obligation of the Law but that we are not under the rigorous Exaction of the Law requiring perfect obedience without affording either pardon for any Offences against it or any sufficient aid of Grace to perform it Christians by the Covenant of Grace which now they are under are delivered from that desperate state which the Law leaves them in that are under it being relieved by a double Grace first of pardon of Sin upon Repentance and secondly of ability through the assistance of God's Spirit to yield such obedience to the Law as will be accepted And so to the Objection of the burthen of that Obedience which by the premisses hath been asserted necessary to Salvation I answer That God's accepting by the new Covenant Repentance joyned with Faith in Christ instead of perfect Obedience required in the old is a sufficienu abatement of the intolerableness of the old yoke and as ample a dispensation as could be afforded to Sinners to qualifie them for salvation which will further appear upon these Considerations 1. That Repentance supposing men to be sinners admitted by the Covenant of Grace for the Condition of Salvation affords a remedy for Sin and a capacity of Life to them that by the old Covenant are absolutely excluded from all hopes thereof 2. That Reformation of life and future obedience which Repentance signifies is not the same which the Law exacts that is not absolute and perfect without any manner of defect Not the not-sinning at all but the not wilfully and presumptuously sinning and abiding therein impenitently after the receiving * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the knowledge or acknowledgment of the truth Heb. 10.26 A sincere desire and faithful indeavour of obedience is accepted for Repentance which may consist with some such things as the Law condemns as sins of ignorance not affected sins of Infirmity and surreption Imperfection in the performance of duty sincerely indeavoured with many frailties which a Christian labours under and against but cannot perfectly overcome Such things as these although as transgressions of the pure and perfect Law of God they have the nature of sin yet by the tenor of the new Covenant and through the mercy of God in Christ the Mediator thereof they shall not be imputed to the penitent sinner that by a true Faith layes hold upon that Mediator So that there be some sins which do not make void the effect and benefit of Repentance but are consistent with the truth of it and a regenerate state But because it is difficult to determine precisely and exclusively what they are it concerns every true penitent to take as much heed as he can of all sin and not to presume of any indulgence for the least that can be avoided by him And whiles it is said that some kinds of sin are consistent with such a Repentance as is available to salvation it is implyed that others are not so and such are all gross wilful and presumptuous sins But 3. Neither do such sins as these after a man hath once truly repented exclude a sinner from the benefit of the Gospel But are still capable of the same remedie which is allowed for all sorts of sin which a man is found guilty of before his first Conversion Although such sins do evacuate the benefit of his former repentance so far as to render him uncapable of expecting or claiming the Remission of them thereby suspending his pardon for the present till he hath renewed his repentance or repaired the breach of it Herein consists the abundance of Gospel-grace and the benefit of repentance that it is never out-dated not being restrained to one general pardon as the Novatians heretically taught nor limited to any number of Repetitions There is no sin at any time unpardonable under the Condition of Repentance For that against the Holy Ghost is supposed to be so upon this account only that it excludes that Grace by which a man should be inabled to repent These three things relating to the doctrine of Repentance duly considered I conceive to be sufficient to answer the Objection before suggested Especially if that be added which I take to be agreeable to the doctrine of the Gospel viz That whosoever imbraceth this second Covenant shall be sufficiently inabled by the grace thereof that is by the Spirit of Christ that helps him though not to keep the whole Law exactly and perfectly without sin yet to do all things which by that Covenant are required of him to work out his own salvation This sufficiency of Grace I take to be supposed in the Exhortation of my Text and confirmed by the Reason that follows after it For it is God that worketh in you to will and to do of his good pleasure Of which afterward Thus far we have proceeded towards the resolution of that great Question What is to be done by him that desires to work out his own salvation from the distinct Answer of our blessed Saviour and two of his Apostles to the same Question Believe in the Lord Jesus saith Saint Paul Repent saith St. Peter Keep the Commandments saith our Saviour These three Answers comprehending whatever is required of a Christian in order to his salvation might suffice for a complete Answer to that Question But considering the infinite weight and moment of the Question some further Enlargement of the Answer from 3. or 4. selected Texts is not to be counted superfluous And the first of these additional Texts shall be that of the Apostle St. Peter urging the same Exhortation with that in our Text in other words 2 Pet. 1.5 And besides this giving all diligence add
doubt makes it a sin to him Or suppose a man to doubt whether it be lawful to lend money to Vsury or to play at Cards or Dice or to drink a health upon the reflections of the Fathers upon those things as not agreeable to Christian sobriety or as things scandalous and of no good report He that doubts the lawfulness of those things though whilst he doth no more he cannot condemn the use of them in others that are free from that doubt yet is bound to abstain from them himself because he is perfectly free so to do as he is not in the use of them by reason of his doubt In the second Case where the doubt is whether the action in question be commanded or not commanded the action is to be done by the same Principles because the onely doubt supposed in this Case is whether the action be commanded or not and not at all whether it be lawful so that it is supposed out of doubt to be lawful to do it and doubted onely whether it be lawful to omit it In this Case I say a man is bound to do the action because if he doth it he supposeth himself not to sin because he doubts not the lawfulness of it But if he doth it not he must needs sin by the 2. Principle Either doubly by omitting that which is commanded and so obliging him before and without his doubt and also by omitting the same Duty doubtingly Or at least he must needs sin singly by acting doubtfully without necessity and where a safer course was in his choice As for Example Suppose a man doubts whether the Canon or Custom of the Church to keep the Lent-fast or other Fast-daies appointed by Law do binde his Conscience or not having no reasonable excuse for the omitting those observances but doth not at all doubt but that it is lawful for him to keep them whether in compliance with the Church or upon other accounts The resolution of this doubt is plain to wit that the Fasts ought to be kept in this Case because they cannot be omitted without sin whereas it is supposed they may be kept without any doubt of sin In these two Cases the resolution is demonstrated by the foremention'd Principles The onely difficulty is in the third Case where the doubt is double viz. whether the action in question be commanded or forbidden In this Case the doubt remaining it seems impossible to avoid the necessity of sinning because the action in it self must either be forbidden or commanded or neither commanded nor forbidden Now if it be forbidden and I do it with this doubt I sin doubly as before was shewed if I do it not and it be commanded I sin likewise doubly upon the same account If it be neither commanded nor forbidden yet I cannot but sin whether I do it or no because I either do or leave undone a thing which I doubt whether I may lawfully omit or do For if a man must not chuse to do a thing which he doubts whether he may do or not for that onely reason because he doubts then neither may be omit an action which he doubts whether he may omit or no. If then the Case be as is supposed that the doubt is whether a thing be commanded or forbidden either directly and immediately by God himself in his Word or the Law of right Reason or indirectly and mediately by his Authority vested in lawful Governours not exceeding their Commission the same reason that makes it unlawful to do it viz. the doubt whether he may do it or no will make it equally unlawful to omit it As for instance Suppose a man doubts of a ceremony in Gods Worship commanded by the Church whether it be not forbidden by God In this Case the doubt must needs fall in both ways For first the Command of the Church is reason enough to doubt whether it be not commanded of God because that Authority by the Law of God extends to all things not forbidden by God and the doubt whether it be forbidden or no supposeth him not to know or believe that it is and therefore must needs leave him in doubt whether it be not commanded because if it be not forbidden it is commanded 2. The reason of the doubt whether it be not forbidden by God may be various taken from the Opinion of some Learned and good men or grounded upon some dubious interpretation of some Texts of Scripture or upon some mistaken Principle or seeming consequence from a true one The question is what is to be done in this Case it being concluded by the third Principle that it is absolutely necessary for a man either to do or not do it neither of which elections can be made without sin by reason of the doubt both ways as is supposed The common answer to this streight is That a man ought to depose his doubt which answer is perfectly unreasonable in most Cases because it is for the present impossible It being not in the power of any man to cease his doubting the truth of any proposition immediately and arbitrarily without removing or solving the reasons of his doubt So that this advise to a distracted Conscience is no better than if a Physitian called to a sick Patient should prescribe for the onely remedy of his Distemper an Exhortation to shake off his sickness or not to entertain it any longer which would be taken for no better than a plain mocking the Patient The onely reasonable meaning that this advice can have is That a man should do what in him lies to resolve his own doubt by labouring to understand the true resolution of the Question on either part But this advice may be impracticabe in many Cases and is in all Extempore where neither means nor time is allowed sufficient to effect it The Question then is What other advice may be given for the present and what resolution is to be made thereupon This Question is onely capable of being resolved by the fourth and the last Principles which may be thus applied in all actions and therefore in this notwithstanding my doubt I am to act as reasonably as I can and it being supposed that whether I do this action or omit it at this time I must necessarily sin because I cannot depose my doubt nor avoid sin if I act or not act with it I am to inquire what reason I have to adventure upon one of these sins rather than upon the other and if I can finde any sufficient to turn the Scale that must determine my choice by the last Principle And in this disquisition the most considerable Reason of the Election to be made on either part will consist in the degree of the sin if any such may appear or be justly suspected For seeing the greatest Reason that can be for the abstaining from any action is the avoidance of sin the dehree of the sin doth proportionably augment the Reason If then the action whereof
his journey every step or every refreshment he takes in the way yet may he be truly said to intend that end in every step of the way yea even in those wherein he seems to go out of the way only to to take in refreshments to inable him to go on with the more cheerfulness The common ends of those Actions-which are named in the Text viz. eating and drinking were the preservation of life health and strength and men are truly said to eat and drink for those ends although they do not think of those things as oft as they eat Thus may a man glorifie God in his sleep when he doth not think of him by designing that Rest to his glory as a means of refreshing the body for his service This habitual devotion of the whole man to the glory of God doth mainly consist in two things 1. In a sincere desire and purpose of heart to obey the Will of God in all things and that for this end that thereby God may be glorified For as it is true which before was said that God cannot be dishonoured by any thing which is not contrary to his Will beeause every dishonour of God is a Sin and every sin is a transgression of the Will of God So is it as manifest that the greatest honour and glory that can be given to God consists in the performance of his Will For as God willeth nothing so much as his own glory nor any thing but for it so neither can any thing promote or serve his glory so much as what he willeth nor any thing at all but what is at least agreeable to his Will But whereas there are some things approveable and agreeable to his Will which are not thereby commanded it is to be noted that our duty of serving his glory doth consist especially in doing those things which are commanded which Obedience saith Samuel is better than Sacrifice Therefore I limit the extent of this habitual purpose as it is a duty required in the Text to the matter of obedience not conceiving that a man is bound to have the like general purpose for the doing of whatsoever may tend to the glory of God For the Text doth not absolutely require us to do whatsoever may be done to the glory of God but whatsoever we shall do to do all to the glory of God Not that I intend to deny that a Christian is ingaged in point of love and gratitude to promote and advance the glory of God as much as morally he can but that the Duty commanded in this general Precept doth not expresly extend so farr which yet doth extend to all the actions which a man actually doth or should do 2. A second thing wherein this habitual devotion to Gods glory doth consist is in an humble and cheerful willingness to submit himself and all that belongeth to him to the appointment and difposal of the Will of Gods providence willing that God should serve his own glory in the disposal of any thing that is his and therefore also willing to suffer any thing that the wisedome of God shall think fit to impose upon him 3. But thirdly Men do then act to the glory of God most expresly and perfectly when in their particular actings they do actually and explicitly consider design and intend this end when they have it in their eye minding and setting it before them as the highest end of their doings and are therefore careful to do such things and in such manner as may make most for that end when a man acts all for this end denying himself and all other ends in comparison of this when he doth set aside all other ends besides this acting purely and solely for Gods glory or when he sets all ends behind or below this and makes them subordinate to it For when the Apostle teacheth us to do all to the glory of God his meaning is not that this should be the sole End of all our Actions but that it should be the highest End and that which should Rule and Govern all other Ends whereunto all other Ends should be subservient or at least-wise consistent For God allow's us to love our selves and requires us to love our Brethren and therefore we may propound the good of our Selves and our Brethren as some End of our Doings God himself hath propounded to us other ends than this in our Well Doing in his Promises of Reward Something we may do for the Honour of our Prince and Countrey yea and for our own Honour too so it be without Ambition and Vanity This End of God's Honour or Glory is not inconsistent with other honest Ends much less repugnant but Superior to them And as it is not necessary a man should have no other End but this so neither is it necessary nor possible that a man should expresly propose this End to himself by an actual Intention in every Act of his Life yet it is the part of a godly man frequently to consider and reflect upon this End and to have regard unto it especially in all serious and deliberate Actions constantly in all Religious Actions and carefully in all doubtful Actions I have now done with the Explication of this Doctrine and am to proceed to matter of Confirmation which though it be not necessary in respect of the Evidence of the Doctrine which is no other than an express Sentence of holy Scripture yet may it be useful in order to the urging of the Practice 1. To consider how the same Duty is taught and required in some other Scriptures 2. To shew the Equity Reasonableness and Advantage of it in several respects Another Text where this Duty is expresly taught is in 1 Pet. 4.11 That God in all things may be glorified through Jesus Christ This is that which Christians ought to aime at that God in all things may be Glorified And that this should be the Desire and Scope of every Christian is to be noted from the first Petition of the Lord's Prayer Hallowed be thy name that is sanctified for I think the Latin word is better understood than the English or Glorified be thy name Hereby we are taught what should be the first and chiefest defire of a Christiau namely the honour and glory of God's name and that which is or ought to be the first and chiefest of our Desires ought to be the highest end of all our Actions That which men pray for they ought in their practice to aime at and labour for else their prayers are hypocritical as going out of fained lips Seeing therefore we are taught before all things to pray that God's name may be hallowed and glorified this ought to be our study and practice The same may be also inferred from the following petitions wherein we pray that Gods Kingdom may come and his will be done on earth as it is in Heaven Gods name is glorified when his Kingdom is advanced and established and his will is done His glory is
but also from all things that may give any suspicion or have any appearance of these Vices for this Reason especially because God is thereby liable to be dishonoured Now that God may be dishonoured by such Actions as have an appearance of Evil in them is evident because look how much appearance of Evil there is in an Action so much appearance there is of Repugnancy to the Will of God and consequently so much appearance of Contempt or neglect of that Will of God in him that voluntarily doth it Now this appearance of Evil in any Action may be either to a man's self only or to others also or to others only For a Christian to do any thing willingly which hath a probable appearance to his own Conscience of being Evil though in truth it be not so in it's self is therefore a Sin because it implies a neglect or want of respect to the Honour of God Wherefore St. Paul in his Epistle to the Romans where he also speaks as he doth here of Eating and Drinking with distinction of Meats gives this general Rule He that doubteth is condemned viz. of his own Conscience and therefore also by St. John's Rule 1 John 5.21 by God also if he Eat For whatsoever is not of Faith is Sin i.e. whatsoever is done without a just and reasonable perswasion of the lawfulness thereof is Sin Faith here being put for such a Perswasion is called Knowledge in the same Matter 1 Cor. 8.7 A Christian ought to be so tender and jealous or zealous of God's glory as not willingly to do any thing that he doubts to be offensive to him God himself in the second Commandment is said to be a jealous God in reference to his own Glory and therefore forbad the Jews as is conceived the making of any manner of Images of their own Invention to a sacred use and especially all manner of outward appearance of worshipping them And when we thus know him to be so jealous of his own glory it concerns us to be as jealous of any thing that hath any reasonable appearance of prejudice or opposition thereto He that much honours or loves any Person will be fearful of doing any thing willingly which he suspects may disparage or displease him or that hath any appearance of dishonour or disrespect to him And this as I shall shew afterwards is a special importance of that general Duty of fearing God that is a reverend and awful fear of doing any thing that may appear to be dishonourable or offensive to God 2. But if this appearance or suspition of Evil in an Action be not only such to the Actor himself but to others also before whom it is to be done the doing of it will be the more dishonourable to God because it is scandalous he is doubly guilty that Sinn 's openly because he doth not only act but teach a Sin For all visible or known Actions are exemplary in their own nature though there be no such Intention yea though there be a contrary desire in the Actor that is that his doing should not be imitated But the main Question is What is to be done in case this appearance of Evil in an Action be only to others and none at all to him that is to do it but being to his certain knowledge or perswasion a lawful Action I Answer that if this be known such Actions are ordinarily for that time and that reason to be abstained from by the Rule of the Text. For such was the particular Case of Instance with the Corinthians to whom the eating of things offered to Idols was indifferent in it self so it were done without respect to the Idol but is forbidden by the Apostle only upon the account of Scandal as appears not only by the fore-going Verses but also by the words following my Text Give none Offence i.e. Scandal or occasion of Stumbling neither to the Jews nor to the Gentiles nor to the Church of God i.e. neither to Christians The same Reason is urged to the same purpose more fully by the Appostle in the 8. Chap. 8. v. to the end of the Chapter God is dishonoured by all manner of Scandal whether it be taken only and not given or given and not taken but especially by such as is given and taken or by such as is so given as is likely to be taken And because by this Text we are required as much as in us lies to prevent all manner of dishonour to God which may be occasioned by our Actions therefore ought we to take heed of all Scandal that may be taken thereby that is to prevent it as far as we may Now Scandal in the ordinary sense that is insisted upon by Practical Divines is Something done by any man that is an occasion of Sin in another I say something because every thing that may be an occasion of Sin in another is not a Scandal in their sense though in Scripture-phrase the word is sometime so used But Scandal is given either by some known Sin which a man doth or seemeth to do before others or by such indifferent Actions as a man doth before others by whom he knows or hath reason to suspect they are reputed Evil. To incourage others by Example as well as otherwise to the omitting of any Duty or committing any Sin is Scandal From which a Christian is to abstain in or upon a double Respect First to the glory of God according to the Rule oâ— the Text lest he should be dishonoured by the Siâ— of his Neighbour Secondly to the good of his Neighbour lest he should be thereby induced tâ—â— Sin to the hurt of his Soul So the Two greaâ— Commandements of loving God above all and 〈◊〉 Neighbour as our selves do joyntly concurr to in hiâ— bit a Christian from all such Actions such I say as though they be not sinful in themselves noâ— yet have any appearance of Evil to him that doth them yet will occasion another man's Sin by doing that by the incouragement of his Example which will be a Sin in him because he judgeth iâ— to be so For he that doth an Act which he thinketh to be a Sin doth therefore sin because he intendeth to Sin by the consent of his Will to that Action notwithstanding the apprehension of Sin Q. 1. But it may be demanded What is to be done in case the Action that hath this appearance of Evil to others be not indifferent but commanded either immediately by God or by such as have Authority under God over a man Whether is a Christian in such a Case to omit that Action to avoid the scandal of his Brother I answer No surely The reason is plain because such an omission is a sin and so a direct dishonouring of God in it self But one Sin is not to be prevented by another As a man is not to do Evil that good may come of it so neither may he omit the doing of that Good which is commanded to
prevent others doing of Evil. To omit a necessary Duty is a present certain Evil the Scandal that may be taken thereby is but accidental and contingent though it be probable Love both to God and our selves requires that if God must be dishonoured it should rather be by another than by a man's self Besides the omission of such Actions gives generally as great or a greater Scandal to others as it removes from some Were the Case so that a far greater Sin and Dishonour to God were like to be done by occasion of this Action than that Omission would be yet were we not allowed much less bound thus to prevent it Because there is no possible Consideration which can license much less oblige a man to Sin The least Sin is not to be done to prevent the greatest Q. 2. But what if the Action be only good and commendable and not absolutely commanded For such Actions I think may be admitted as well under the Gospel as in the Free-will Offerings and voluntary Vows under the Law without yielding the Doctrine of Supererogation If such Actions have an appearance of Evil to others whether are they to be omitted for that only Reason Answ If that Brother who is suspected to be scandalized by such an Action be truly weak that is uninstructed and not proud wilful or obstinate and if that Scandal cannot be sufficiently prevented by instruction and due means of rectifying his judgment I think the Action should for the present be omitted Because all Actions commanded in their kind are not alwaies necessary to be performed according to the common Rule 〈◊〉 the School concerning affirmative Precepts nâ— binding ad Semper that is at every time Indeed the general Precepts of Believing and Fearinâ— God and Loving Him and our Neighbours dâ— bind both semper and ad semper that is at aâ— times but then it is to the Habits not to the elicâ—â— much less imperate Acts of these Vertues that man is alwayes bound It is not necessary becauâ—â— not possible for a man alwayes to Elicit the Act of Faith Fear or Love but the Disposition aâ— Habits must never be wanting nor can be in good Christian And if Acts commanded mâ— for some Reasons be omitted at some times bâ— cause they bind not to all times then much mâ— may such Acts as being not commanded though good are not necessary at any time be omitted some time 2. Because as before was said â—â—ctions not only indifferent but good in themselves may become Evil by some Circumstances amongst which this may fall out to be one 3. Because the doing of such a good Action not commanded may bring more dishonour to God by the scandal of it than it will do honour by the doing of it And though we may not do the least Evil to prevent the greatest yet may we omit a less good when it is not commanded to promote a greater 4. Lastly that general Rule that God will have mercy and not Sacrifice may be applied to this Case where the Soul of my Brother is probably indangered by my voluntary Sacrifice But Q. 3. What if the Act that hath an appearance of Evil to Bretheren which are truly weak be barely lawful and indifferent in it self neither commanded nor yet good in its Nature or Kind but yet necessary for the preservation of a man's Life Liberty Estate or Credit and cannot be omitted without notable prejudice and hazard to a man's self in these Interests Whether is a man bound to redeem the Scandal of his Brethren with such hazard or prejudice to himself or his Family The Arguments producible for the affirmative in this Question are to be drawn 1. From the Consideration of God's Dishonour which by the Sin of another occasioned by this Act of mine will be procured 2. From the Debt of Charity to the Souls of our Neighbours For the glory of God and the salvation of our Bretheren ought to be preferred before any temporal Interest of our own Answ It is certainly true that the high regard which a man owes to these two things will oblige a Christian to do his indeavour to prevent the impeachment of them and therefore bind him to use such prudential means as he is able to prevent the danger of Sin in another which may be done without forbearing the Action which his necessity or just interest doth so much require Had the Corinthians for want of other Meat been in danger to have starved or by not eating this any otherwise hazarded their Lives I think they had not been absolutely bound to abstain by the Apostle's meaning in the Directions which here he gives them which do not suppose them under any such Extremity but only invited to the Meat In that Case of Danger I think To have protested against all respect and honour to the Idol might have acquitted them from the Scandal and made their eating that Meat in such a case lawful though the Apostle hath not expressed any such Exception because there was no occasion for it And though there were an express Apostolical Interdict against eating things offered to Idols Acts 15. which was one of the esteemed Precepts of Noah yet it appears by S. Paul's Discourses in the preceding Verses of this Chapter and elsewhere upon the same Theme that it was but a temporal or provisionâ— Edict not obliging beyond the necessity of thaâ— Case whereupon it was made And this I think iâ— the Warrant by which most Christians do not now hold themselves obliged by the same Edict to abstain from eating of Bloud or things made thereof which yet was observed in the Church for soâ—â— Centuries and forbidden by some Councils It is hard to think that another man's Erroâ—â— or weakness especially when a sufficient Remedy thereof is offered by me should restrain me of such use of my lawful liberty as is necessary to my own preservation If I were bound to redeem every accidental dishonour to God or hurt to my neighbour's souls by the loss of those benefits which Gods Providence affords me it would be scarce possible to enjoy them at all But for a conclusion to this point of Scandal the full and exact handling whereof agrees not with the model of a Sermon I shall only adde a short Inquiry into some of the reasons or causes whereby men are induced to imitate others in things against their own conscience the discovery whereof will be useful to resolve some questions in this case I shall name but two which are both grounded upon the mistake of the imitator Herein I shall take leave to borrow something both of sense D. H. H. and words from a late reverend Author who hath learnedly discoursed upon this Question 1. One reason whereby people are sometimes incouraged to do that which is against their own conscience is from their own mistake of the action or intention of him whom they imitate thinking him to do or intend that which he doth not Thus