far and in what instances we are bound to consider the weakness of our Brother First For the resolution of this Question it is necessary to know what is the true notion of a weak Brother Now a weak Brother or weak in Faith in Scripture denotes one newly converted to Christianity and so neither thorowly instructed in the principles nor well setled in the practice of it the same whom our Saviour calls a little one and the Apostle a babe in Christ 1 Cor. 3. 1. Conversion to Christianity is often called our new birth and consequently at Mens first entrance into the Christian Church they were for a while reckoned as in an Infant state and accordingly were to be most tenderly handled and nursed and gently used with all favour and indulgence not driven faster than they were able to go till by degrees by the improvement of their knowledge they came to be of full Age as the Apostle expresseth it Heb. 5. 14. They were at first to be fed with Milk to be taught the easiest and plainest Doctrines against which least exceptions could be made as our Blessed Saviour himself would not at first tell his Disciples of the shame and sufferings he was to undergo and when he did speak of them it was covertly and obscurely so that they did not perfectly understand him lest they should by it have been presently discouraged and tempted to have forsaken him no unnecessary burdens were to be laid upon them which might render their new Profession grievous to them every Stumbling-block and prejudice was to be removed out of their way that might occasion their falling the grown Christians and proficients were Charitably to condescend to the capacity of these Novices and make allowances and for a time bear with their Ignorance and many mistakes and Childish humours and deny themselves their own Liberty and become even as Children with them as if themselves were of the same mind and understood no better than these raw beginners Now these fresh Disciples little ones or Babes are the same with those St. Paul Rom. 14. calls weak Brethren weak for want of Age or Growth or as the Original word rather signifies Sickly and Feeble like a Man beginning to recover from a wasting Disease his distemper tho cured yet hangs a long time upon him the Dregs of it still remain He must for a while be carefully attended and watched since every little thing discomposes him and hazards a relapse So was it with these first Converts As soon as ever they were brought to acknowledg Jesus to be the Son of God and were willing to become his Disciples they were immediately Baptized tho as yet they understood but little of the Nature or design of the Gospel The Apostles and first Preachers of our Religion were in hast to make more Proselytes and therefore presently Baptized all that were willing to it without that previous Instruction and Preparation which afterwards when Churches were setled was made necessary before Heathens or Jews could be admitted by Baptism Thus the same day the Apostles Preached Christ to the Jews Acts 2. they Baptized about three thousand of them and Philip without any delay Baptized the Eunuch as soon as he professed to believe that Jesus was the Son of God and the Jaylor and his Household were Baptized the same hour at midnight at which Paul and Silas spake unto them the word of the Lord. After their Baptism they were to be tutor'd and train'd up in their new Religion where great care was to be taken great prudence and caution used towards them lest they should suddenly flie back and repent of their change for having been bred up and so long lived Jews or Gentiles and then of a sudden turn'd Christians they retain'd still a great love and kindness for many of their old Customs and Opinions they had mighty and inveterate prejudices to overcome the Old man was by degrees to be put off and therefore they were at first treated with all the tenderness and condescension imaginable the stronger and wiser Christians would not stand rigidly on any little matters would for the present tolerate many things which were necessary afterwards to be done away hoping that in time they might be better taught and be brought off those mistakes they now Labour'd under Had the Apostles in the beginning plainly told all the Jews of the ceasing of their Laws the abrogation of their Ceremonies and Worship the no necessity of Circumcision the taking in of the Gentiles they would never have born such Doctrines they would never have become Christians upon such terms nor ever endured those Teachers who seem'd to make so little account of Moses and their Temple Now to gain these St. Paul became weak himself tied up himself while amongst these Jewish Converts to such observances which he was really free from as if he had the same doubts and were of the same opinion with those weak Christians and advises all others who did understand their Liberty yet to oblige their Brethren by the same inoffensive carriage This then was the difference between the strong and the weak the strong were the well-grounded understanding Christians that knew it was lawful for them to Eat all kind of Meats that Christ had set them free from the burdensome Yoke of the Jewish Ceremonies the weak tho Brethren that is believers in Christ yet abstained from some Meats judging them unlawful or unclean and observed days and Zealously retained the Mosaical rites not being yet sufficiently instructed in that Liberty our Saviour had purchased for them or in the nature of his Kingdom which consisted not in Meat or Drink but in Righteousness and Peace and Joy in the Holy Ghost Hence I observe 1. That the rules which are laid down in Scripture concerning weak Brethren principally respect those times when our Religion made its first appearance in the World and were temporary provisions for the easier proselyting men to the Faith of Christ or the better securing and fixing those that were already come into the Church They are not standing Laws equally obliging all Christians in all Ages but were suited to the Infant state of the Church or rather to its condition whilst it was but an Embryo till Churches were formed and setled and our Christianity had got firm Footing and Possession in the World Thus St. Paul tells us 1 Cor. 9. 19. For tho I be free from all Men yet have I made my self servant unto all that I might gain the more And unto the Jews I became as a Jew that I might gain the Jews to them that are under the Law as under the Law that I might gain them that are under the Law To them that are without Law as without Law being not without Law to God but under the Law to Christ that I might gain them that are without Law To the weak became I as weak that I might gain the weak I am made all things to all men that I
might by all means save some And this I do for the Gospels sake that I might be partaker thereof with you This was the Apostles design in all these Compliances and Civilities to win many to the Faith of Christ by these wise arts to insinuate himself and his Doctrine into them but when he had once made his way he then taught them another lesson and behaved himself after a far different manner Now to do as St. Paul did would always be the duty and wisdom of one in his circumstances who had his office and was to propagate any Religion amongst Heathens and Infidels like a Master that dealeth not so sharply with his Scholar at his first entrance into the School as he thinketh fit to do afterwards But the directions St. Paul gave and according to which himself practis'd at the first planting of Christianity do no more agree with our times wherein Christianity is become the National Religion countenanced by the Civil Laws and Authority and so generally professed by every one amongst us that we hardly know of any other Religion than the same Cloaths we did wear in our Infancy would serve us now when we are of full Age. We ought indeed to be very careful of Children and lead them by strings and remove every straw and rub out of their way lest they stumble and fall but it is ridiculous to use the same care towards grown men None of us Labour under those prejudices the first Christians did who forsook a Religion in which they had been bred and long lived and as to the Jews had left a way of Worship commanded them by God himself confirmed to them by many Miracles and Wonders delivered to them from their Fathers by a constant succession of Prophets sent from God There is not now amongst us any such competition between two Religions but every one learneth Christianity as he doth his Mothers Tongue The Apostles therefore and Governours of the Church carried themselves towards these new Converts as God Almighty did towards the Children of Israel when he brought them first out of Aegypt He for a while led them by a Pillar of Fire and of a Cloud gave them Water out of the Rock and rain'd down Bread and Flesh from Heaven This he did for them whilest in their passage thus extraordinarily provide for them and in some cases even humour that People lest upon every little pretence they should return back to the Garlick and Onyons of Aegypt but after they were setled in the Land of Canaan he then left them in their own hands by ordinary Common means to take care of and provide for themselves he did not shew the same indulgence to them as he did whilst they were in the Wilderness St. Paul would not take that reward that was due to him for Preaching the Gospel but himself Laboured hard night and day because he would not be chargeable to his Converts 1 Thess 2. 9. and this he did for the furtherance of the Gospel that all might see he did not serve his own Belly But surely our Dissenting Brethren do not think themselves obliged by this Example in places where Publick maintenance is setled on Ministers by Law to refuse to take it and earn their own Bread by some manual occupation tho thereby they avoid giving offence to Quakers and those who call them hirelings and say they prophesie only for filthy lucre Thus it is usually observed that St. Paul writes quite after a different manner to the Romans and to the Galatians tho upon the same subject In his Epistle to the Romans amongst whom he had never yet been he pitieth and pleadeth for the weak Christians chargeth that they should not be despised or cast off that no cause of offence should be given them but to the Galatians a People that had been fully instructed in the nature of their Christian Liberty amongst whom himself had planted the Gospel and had been present in person and so knew that they understood better when some of them fell into the same Error thinking Circumcision and the observation of the Mosaical Law necessary to Christians he chides them sharply and rebukes them more severely Who hath bewitched you O foolish Galatians c. He who would condescend to the Ignorant Novices amongst the Romans would not in the least comply with the Galatians that had or ought to have had more knowledge and light and afterwards when the reason of such forbearance ceased when the nation of the Jews had rejected Christ and the Gentile world was come into the Church the observation of the Mosaical Law and the distinction of meats contained therein was so far from being tolerated in those whether Jews or Gentiles who through mistake thought themselves obliged to it that it was condemned by the Rules and Canons of the Church The sum of all this is that whatever Argument may be drawn from St. Paul's discourses about weak Brethren by way of Analogy or Similitude or Parity of reason yet there are no such weak persons now amongst us as those were for whom the Apostle provideth or as those little ones were for whom our Saviour was so much concerned 2ly I would desire our Dissenting Brethren to consider by what pretence they can challenge any priviledge belonging to them under the notion of weak Christians when according to their own opinion and conceit of themselves they are of all men furthest off from being such in any sense This is as if a man worth a Thousand pound per annum should Sue in formâ pauperis They who take upon themselves to be teachers of others wiser and better than their Neighbours the only Sober and Godly party and are too apt to despise all other Christians as Ignorant or Prophane with what colour of reason can they plead for any favour to be shewn or regard to be had to them in complyance with their weakness Tho they love to argue against us from the example of St. Pauls condescension to the uninstructed Jews or Gentiles yet it is apparent that they do not in other cases willingly liken themselves to those weak believers or Babes in Christ They have really better thoughts of themselves and would be Leaders and Masters in Israel and prescribe to their Governours and give Laws to all others and do prefer their own private opinion which they call their Conscience before the Judgment of the wisest men or the determinations of their Lawful Superiours And if in all instances we should deal with them as weak persons turn them back to their Primmer advise them to learn their Catechism they would think themselves highly wrong'd and injured If the several Dissenters amongst us did in good earnest look upon themselves as weak that is Ignorant Wavering half Christians did they think their dislike of the Constitutions of our Church to be the effect of such weakness they would be either more careful to hide it or would more diligently seek out for remedy
of what he doth 3. It is truly observed by some that considering the known temper of the Nonconformists it is not very likely any such mischief should ensue viz. that by the example of one or more leaving their Separate Assemblies others should be moved to follow them against their own Judgment and Conscience It is abundantly notorious how they have used to treat those that have deserted them with what irreconcileable enmity they have prosecuted them looking upon them as their worst Enemies passing more grievous censures upon them than upon those who have all their lives long continued in our Communion 4. I proceed in the last place to observe from what I have discoursed concerning giving Offence that if to Offend any one be to lead him into sin then we may Scandalize and give Offence to others as soon by pleasing them and complying with them as by dipleasing them and going contrary to their mind and humour St. Paul who Circumcised Timothy Acts 16. 3. in favour of the weak Jews that he might insinuate and ingratiate himself into them refused to Circumcise Titus Galat. 2. 3. tho he made the Jews angry by it yet he would not give place by subjection or submission and condescension to them no not for an hour He considered the different states and conditions of the persons he had to deal withal He complyed to Circumcise Timothy lest all the Jews with him should have forsaken the Christian Faith and for the same reason he denied to Circumcise Titus lest those of Jerusalem should think he was of opinion that the Jewish Law held still in force and so the Cross of Christ should become of no effect to them He pleased indeed the former for fear of driving them from Christianity and for the same reason he displeased the latter lest he should give them occasion to think the observation of Moses's Law always necessary He had truly Scandalized them if he had done as they would have had him He had Offended them in the true Scripture sense if he had pleased and humoured them and this is the most ordinary way of Scandalizing Christians amongst us by not plainly telling Men of their faults and mistakes by not speaking freely and roundly to them nor acting couragiously whereby they become hardned and confirmed in their folly and ignorance To this purpose I cannot but repeat the words of Mr. Baxter in the Book I have so often cited Many a time saith he I have the rather gone to the Common-Prayers of the publick Assemblies for fear of being a Scandal to those same men that called the going to them a Scandal that is for fear of hardning them in a sinful Separation and Error because I knew that was not Scandal which they called Scandal that is displeasing them and crossing their opinions but hardning them in an Error or other sin is true Scandalizing Vnderstand this or you will displease God under pretence of avoiding Scandal p. 135. Thus by complying with our Dissenting Brethren we really do them that mischief which we would avoid and fall into the sin of giving Scandal whilest we are running from it We countenance and encourage their sinful Separation and Division we confirm them in their dangerous Errors and Mistakes we by our practice condemn those things which yet in our Consciences we allow and approve of and by our Authority and influence harden others in their unreasonable prejudices and opposition against the lawful Commands of their Superiours They think us of the same mind with themselves whilst we do the same things and that we judge as ill of the Church of England as long as we refuse to Communicate with it as themselves do and thus we give occasion to their sin and those infinite mischiefs which have happened both to Church and State upon the account of our Religious disputes and divisions which surely ought to be well thought of and considered by a sort of Men amongst us who shall go to Church in the Morning and to a Conventicle in the Afternoon who halt between both and would fain displease neither side but indeed give real Offence to both From all this I think it is very plain that he who is satisfied in his own mind of the lawfulness of Conformity but is afraid of giving Offence by it if he be true to this principle ought to hasten the faster to his Parish-Church that he might not Offend those very Dissenters of whom he would seem to be so tender and thus I have done with the Second thing I propounded to shew what is meant by Offending or Scandalizing 3. It remaineth in the Third and Last place to enquire how far and in what instances we are bound to consider the ignorance or weakness of our Brother In Answer to this that I may proceed with all the clearness I can I shall now suppose notwithstanding all I have already said that our Dissenting Brethren are truly weak persons and that there may be some danger of their being through their own fault Offended by our Conformity yet taking this for granted I shall plainly shew that he who is in his own mind convinced of the lawfulness of coming to his Parish-Church and using the Forms of Prayer and Ceremonies by Law appointed ought not to forbear doing the same for fear of giving such Offence to his weak Brethren There are many other things to be considered in this Case besides this matter of private Scandal and if there be greater evil in and greater mischief to others and a more publick Scandal doth follow our forbearing Communion with the Church and withdrawing into private Assemblies than can happen by our leaving them and returning to the Church and complying with its orders we ought then to conform notwithstanding the Offence that is imagined may be taken at it For these two things as I suppose are agreed on all hands one is that nothing which is sinful may be done to avoid Scandalizing others the other is that to avoid a less Scandal being taken by a few we must not give a greater Scandal and of vastly more pernicious consequence to a much bigger number of persons and by these two Rules I shall now judge of the Case at first propounded 1. Nothing that is sinful may be done to avoid others being Scandalized which is directly the Apostles Doctrine Rom. 3. 8. That we must not do evil that good may come nor is any necessary duty to be omitted out of prudence or charity to others lest they through Error or Ignorance be hurt by it We must not to prevent the greatest sin in another commit the least sin our selves nor disobey Gods Law and so run the hazard of our own damnation tho it be to save the Soul of our Brother Thus Calvin tells us Instit lib. 3. c. 19. Quae necessaria sunt factu nullius offendiculi timore omittenda sunt Whatever is necessary to be done by vertue of Gods Command is not to be omitted
this Head we may observe That though these Reverend Persons do go upon different Reasons according to the Principles they espouse they agree not in the Constitution of Churches c. yet they all agree that the Parochial Churches are or may be as I have observed before true Churches of Christ that Communion with such Churches is lawful and that we are to go as far as we can toward Communion with them Though they differ about the Notion of Hearing as whether it be an Act of Communion and about the Call of those they hear yet they all agree in the Lawfulness of it And therefore to separate wholly in this Ordinance and from the Parochial Churches as no Churches are equally condemned by all 3. They hold that they are not to separate from a Church for unlawful things if the things accounted unlawful are not of so heinous a Nature as to unchurch a Church and affect the Vitals of Religion or are not imposed as necessary Terms of Communion 1. If the Corruptions are such as do not unchurch a Church or affect the vital Parts of Religion So saith Mr. Tombs Not every nor many Corruptions Theodulia Answer to Preface § 23. p. 47 48. of some kind do unchurch there being many in Faith Worship and Conversation in the Churches of Corinth and some of the seven Churches of Asia Aid Blake 's Vindiciae Foed c. 31. p. 229 c who yet were Golden Candlesticks amidst whom Christ did walk But such general avowed unrepented of Errors in Faith as overthrow the Foundation of Christian Faith to wit Christ the only Mediator betwixt God and Man and Salvation by him Corruptions of Worship by Idolatry in Life by evil Manners as are utterly inconsistent with Christianity till which in whole or in part they are not unchurched For till then the Corruptions are tolerable and so afford no just reason to dissolve the Church or to depart from it So Mr. Brinsly Arraignment of Schism p. 50. Suppose some just Grievances may be found among us yet are they tolerable If so then is Separation on this ground intolerable unwarrantable in as much as it ought not to be but upon a very great and weighty Cause and that when there is no Remedy So Mr. Noyes Private Brethren may not Temple measured p. 78. separate from Churches or Church-Ordinances which are not fundamentally defective neither in Doctrine or Manners Heresy or Prophaneness To all which add the Testimony of Dr. Owen and Mr. Cotton The former asserts That many Errors in Evangelical Love p. 76. Doctrine disorders in sacred Administrations irregular walking in Conversation with neglect and abuse of Discipline in Rulers may fall out in some Churches and yet not evacuate their Church-state or give sufficient warrant to leave their Communion and separate from them The latter saith Exposit on 1 Epist John p. 156. Unless you find in the Church Blasphemy or Idolatry or Persecution i. e. such as forces them to leave the Communion there is no just Ground of Separation This is universally own'd But if any one should yet continue unconvinced let him but peruse the Catalogue of the Faults of nine Churches in Scripture collected by Mr. Baxter and I perswade my self he will think the Conclusion inferr'd from it to be just and reasonable Observe saith he that no Cure of Church Divisions Dir. 5. p. 40 c. one Member is in all these Scriptures or any other commanded to come out and separate from any of all these Churches as if their Communion in Worship were unlawful And therefore before you separate from any as judging Communion with them unlawful be sure that you bring greater Reasons for it than any of these recited were 2. They are not to separate if the Corruptions are not so made the Conditions of Communion that they must necessarily and unavoidably communicate in them Mr. Vines speaks plainly to both of these On the Sacrament p. 239. The Church may be corrupted many ways in Doctrine Ordinances Worship c. And there are degrees of this Corruption the Doctrine in some remote Points the Worship in some Rituals of Man's Invention or Custom How many Churches do we find thus corrupted and yet no Separation of Christ from the Jewish Church nor any Commandment to the Godly of Corinth c. to separate I must in such a Case avoid the Corruption hold the Communion But if Corruptions invade the Fundamentals the Foundation of Doctrine is destroyed the Worship is become idolatrous and what is above all if the Church impose such Laws of her Communion as there is a necessity of doing or approving things unlawful in that Case Come out of Babylon The Churches of Protestants so separated from Rome But if the things be not of so heinous a Nature nor thus strictly required then Communion with a Church under Defects is lawful and may be a Duty So saith Mr. Corbet in the name of the present Nonconformists We hold not our selves obliged to forsake a Account of the Principles of N. C. p. 8. and Discourse of Relig. § 16. p. 33. true Church as no Church for the Corruptions and Disorders found therein or to separate from its Worship for the tolerable Faults thereof while our personal Profession of some Error or Practice of some Evil is not required as the Terms of our Communion And Mr. Burroughs himself doth grant as much and more for he saith Irenicum c. 23. p. 162 163. Where these Causes are not viz. the being constrained to profess believe or practise contrary to the Rule of Faith or being deprived of Means altogether necessary or most expedient to Salvation but Men may communicate without Sin professing the Truth and enjoy all Ordinances as the Free-men of Christ Men must not separate from a Church tho there be Corruption in it to gather into a new Church which may be more pure and in some respects more comfortable And as tho such Corruptions should be imposed as Terms of Communion yet if not actually imposed upon us our communicating in the true part of God's Worship is never the worse for the said Imposition as long as we do not communicate in those Corruptions as Mr. Bradshaw doth argue So Unreasonableness of the Separation p. 103. though they should be imposed and be unavoidable to all that are in Communion that is not a sufficient Reason for a total Separation as it is also own'd for saith one When the Corruptions of a Church are such as Jerubbaal p. 12. that one cannot communicate with her without Sin unavoidably that seems to me to be a just Ground though not of a Positive yet of a Negative though not of a total yet of a partial Separation i. e. it may be a just Ground for the lesser but is not so for the greater Supposing then the Corruptions in a Church not to be of an heinous Nature not respecting the Fundamentals of Religion
from Divine Providence 2. A necessity proceeding from humane Laws which forbid it 3. A necessity from the Injury done to the Publick And 4. When it is to our own greater hinderance than help as when we must use none or do worse In these and the like Cases it becomes a Duty and what is otherwise lawful is thereby made necessary And he that cannot joyn with a purer Worship than what is publickly established without the breach of Humane Laws or the disturbance of the Publick Peace or dividing the Church of God or the bringing Danger upon himself is as much where any of these or the like Reasons are restrained from so doing as if it did proceed from natural or providential Necessity that is the one he cannot do physically and naturally the other he cannot do morally honestly and prudently Having thus far stated the Case and shew'd that it 's universally owned by those that dissent from the Church of England that Communion in a Worship not essentially defective and corrupted is lawful and that it 's a received Opinion that where better is not to be had it 's a Duty and that better is not to had where it is not to be had lawfully I might freely pass on but because there is a common Objection against what has been said taken from Malac. 1. 14. Cursed be the Deceiver c. that voweth and sacrificeth to the Lord a corrupt thing I shall briefly return their Answer to it and proceed To this the old Non-conformists reply 1. No Argument can be Letter of the the Minist of Old-England to those in New-Engl p. 14. brought from this place to the purpose but by Analogy which is a kind of arguing of all other most ready at hand but liable to most Exceptions and apt to draw aside if Care be not had which in this Case we find not to take the Proportion in every material Point just and true 2. The corrupt Ball 's Trial of the Grounds p. 74. Sacrifice is that which the Deceiver bringeth voluntarily and out of neglect having a Male in his Flock but the Faithful bringeth himself and his goodly Desires according to the Will of God and as for Corruptions whether respecting Matter or Form they are none of his they cleave not to his Sacrifice to stain or pollute it c. 3. He offers not a corrupt thing who offers the best he hath 4. It is to be considered saith Mr. Ball that what is Trial of the Grounds c. c. 4. p. 78. simply best is not best in Relation to this or that Circumstance or End what is best in a time free is not best in a time not free It is granted saith Mr. Baxter that Def. of Cure p. 85. we must offer God the best that we can do but not the best which we cannot do And many things must concur and especially a respect to the Publick Good to know which is the best So that before this Text can be V. Burrough's Iren. c. 12. p. 86. opposed to what has been said it must be proved 1. That the things in question are Corruptions as much prohibited as the blind and lame under the Law 2. That they are such as a Person doth chuse and it is in his Power to help and offers it when he hath a Male in his Flock 3. That such a Corruption as affects not the substance of Worship doth yet alter the Nature of it and makes the whole to be a corrupt thing and abominable to God If these things are not the Objection reacheth not the Case and there is no ground from that place for this Objection I shall conclude this Head with a remarkable Saying Platform of Discipline c. 13. § 5. of the Ministers of New-England To separate from a Church for some Evil only conceived or indeed in the Church which might and should be tolerated and healed with a Spirit of Meekness and of which the Church is not yet convinced though perhaps himself be for this or the like Reasons to withdraw from Publick Communion in Word Seals or Censures is unlawful and sinful But supposing it may be unlawful to separate from a Church for a defective and faulty Worship yet it may be supposed that it may be lawful when it is for better Edification and that we may chuse what is for our Edification before what is not and what is more for our Edification before what is less For the Decision of which Case I shall shew from them P. 2. That as Defects and Faults in Worship so neither is the pretence of better Edification a sufficient Reason against Communion with a Church Sometimes they say it is no better than a meer Pretence and Imaginary a seeming Contentment of Mind as one Methermenent p. 71. On John 4. Lect. 58. calls it This Mr. Hildersham takes notice of Some prefer others before their own Pastor only because they shew more Zeal in their Voice and Gesture and Phrase of Speech and Manner of Delivery though haply the Doctrine it self be nothing so wholesome or powerful or fit to edifie their Consciences as the Doctrine of their own Pastor is of such he saith we may wish them more Knowledg and Judgment Mr. Baxter observes the Cure of Diâ—is p. 359. same One thinks that this is the best way and another that the other is best And commonly appearance and a taking Tone and Voice do more with them than solid Evidence of Truth Therefore it 's fit to have a right Notion of Edification which saith a Reverend Person of late lies more in Conâ—inuat of Morn Exerc. Serm. 4 p. 95. the informing of our Judgments and confirming our Resolutions than in the Gusts and Relishes of Affection These as he saith are indeed of great use to the other but without them are far from making a Person better and leaving him truly edified Again it may be and 't is no better than a meer Pretence when the Fault is in themselves that complain they do not edify Mr. Hildersham charges it upon such Thou Lect. 28. p 129. and Lect. 58. mightest receive Profit if the Fault be not in thy self by the meanest of us that preach And he thus freely again declares himself I am perswaded there is never a Minister that is of the most excellent Gifts if he have a godly Heart but he can truly say he never heard any faithful Minister in his Life that was so mean but he could discern some Gift in him that was wanting in himself and could receive some Profit by him And therefore they advise to cure the Fault before they make use of this Plea So the pious Person above-said argues How shouldest thou profit by his Ministry if thou come with Prejudice without any Reverence or Delight unto it nor dost scarce acknowledg God's Ordinance in it So Mr. Jenkin directs Labour for Comment on Jude v. 19. experimental Benefit by the Ordinances Men
and the same Acts 2. 41. day were added to the Church about 3000 souls It 's true St. Peter exhorted them all to repent in order to it but whether they did so or no he stay'd not for proof from their bringing forth fruits worthy of repentance but presently upon their profest willing reception of the Word they were baptiz'd and added to the Church One might have been apt to suspect that amongst so great a number all would not prove sincere Converts and so it fell out Ananias and Saphira Acts 4. 34. Acts 5. 1 2 3. were two of the number in whom ye know that glad reception of the Gospel was found to be but gross hypocrisie By the same rule St. Philip proceeded in planting the Church at Samaria when the People seeing the miracles he did gave heed to the doctrine he Acts 8. 12. taught concerning the Kingdom of Heaven and the Name of Jesus and declar'd their belief of it without any farther examination they were Baptized both Men and Women And amongst them was Simon Magus wose former notorious Crimes of Sorcery Witchcraft and Blasphemy might have given just grounds of fear to the holy Deacon that his Faith was but hypocritical and his Heart not right in the sight of God as appear'd afterwards yet upon his believing Acts 8. 20. he was Baptiz'd such other Members of Christ's Church were Demas Hymeneus and Alexander they ver 13. had nothing it seems but a bare outward profession of the Faith to entitle them to that Priviledg since afterwards as we read the one embrac'd this present World and the other two made shipwrack of Faith and a good Conscience 3. This appears from the representation Christ hath 2 Tim. 4. 10. 1 Tim. 1. 19. made of his Church in the Gospel fore-instructing his Disciples by many Parables that it should consist of a mixture of good and bad It is a Field wherein Wheat and Tares grow up together A Net wherein are Fishes of all sorts A Flour in which is laid up solid Corn and Mat. 13. 24 25. vers 47. light Chaff A Vine on which are fruitful and barren Branches A great House wherein are Vessels of Gold Mat. 3. 12. and Silver and Vessels of lesser value Wood and Earth John 15. 1. A Marriage feast where are wise and foolish Virgins 2 Tim. 2. 20. some with wedding garments and some without some Mat. 25. had Oyl and some but empty Lamps St. Hierome compares it to Noah's Ark wherein were preserv'd Beasts clean and unclean when the Apostle said They are St. Hier. dial con Lucifer Arca Noae Ecclesiae typus not all Israel that are of Israel his meaning was that in the Jewish Church many more were Circumcis'd in the Flesh than what were Circumcis'd in Heart and when our Saviour said many are call'd Rom. 9. 6. but few chosen he declar'd the same thing that in his Church many more were call'd and admitted into it by Baptism than what were sanctified by his Spirit or should be admitted into his Heaven 4. The many corrupt and vicious Members in the Churches which the Apostle themselves had planted is another proof of this The number whereof in all likelihood could not have been so great had they been so cautious and scrupulous as to admit none into them but whom in their judgments they thought to be really holy In the Church of Corinth there were 1 Cor. 15. 34. ver 12. 2 Cor. 12. 20 21. 1 Cor. 7. many that had not the knowledg of God that denied the Resurrection of the Dead that came Drunk to the Lords Table that were Fornicators Unclean and Contentious Persons In the Church of Galatia there were many that Nauseated the Bread of Life and made it their Choice to pick and eat the rubbish of the partition wall which Christ had demolisht The Rites of the Law which expired at the death of Christ they attempted to pull out of their Graves and to give a Resurrection to them They were so much gone off from the Doctrine of Christianity to weak and beggarly Rudiments observing Days and Months and Gal. 3. 7 10 11. Times and Years that by reason of this their Superstition St. Paul signifi'd his fears of quite losing them and that his labour was bestowed upon them in vain Amongst all the Seven Churches in Asia there was not one but what had receiv'd such Members into it that were either very Cold Lukewarm in their Religion or by their Vicious Lives proved a Reproach and Scandal to it The Church of Sardis so swarm'd with these that St. John tells us that there were but a few Rev. 3. 1 4. names in Sardis that had not defil'd their garments Now if the Apostles of our Lord who had the extraordinary assistances of the Holy Ghost for the discerning of Spirits at that time and were thereby enabl'd far beyond what any of their Successors can pretend to to distinguish betwixt the good and the bad did notwistanding admit many meer formal Professors into the Church of Christ we may conclude that they apprehended that 't was the will of Christ it should be so 5. No other rule in admitting persons into the Church is practicable Whether Persons are really holy and truly regenerate or no the Officers of Christ who know not the hearts of Men cannot make a certain judgment of they may through want of judgment be deceiv'd through the subtilty of hypocrites be impos'd upon through humane frailty passion or prejudice be misguided and by this means many times the door may be open'd to the bad and shut against the good Now that cannot be suppos'd to be a rule of Christ's appointment which is either impossible to be observ'd or in observing which the Governours of his Church cannot be secur'd from acting wrongfully and injuriously to Men. In sum Christ hath entrusted the power of the Keys into the hands of an Order of Men whom he hath set over his Church and who under him are to manage the Affairs of it but these being but Earthen vessels of short and fallible understandings he has 2. Cor. 4 7. not left the execution of their Office to be manag'd solely by their own prudence and discretion but hath given them a certain publick Rule to go by both in admitting persons into his Church and in excluding them out of it for the one the Rule is open and solemn profession of the Christian Faith for the other open and scandalous Offences prov'd by witnesses 2. The second Proposition is That every such Member has a right to all the external Priviledges of the Church till by his continuance in some notorious and scandalous sins he forfeits that right and by the just censures of the Church for such behaviour he be actually excluded from those Priviledges For the explanation and proof of this Proposition these three particulars are to be done 1. What 's
Service were many yet they were sufficiently describ'd in their Law and it was but consulting that or Those whose Office and Employment it was to be well versed in it and they might be presently inform'd and as soon see it as the Book was laid open This they all agreed in But it is not so under the Gospel and there is no greater proof of it than the several schemes drawn up for Discipline and Order by those that have been of that Opinion and made some attemps to discribe them And then when things are thus dark and obscure so hard to trace and discover that it has thus perplexed and baffled those that have made it their business to bring these things within Scripture Rules how perplexed must they be that are not skilled in it And as I have above shewed must all their Days live in the Communion it 's likely of no Church since though a Church should have nothing in it but what is prescribed yet it would take up a great deal of time to examine and more to be satisfied that all in it is prescribed 3. I shall consider How we may know what things are Indifferent in the Worship of God I may answer to this that we may know what is Indifferent in the Worship of God by the same Rule that we may know what is Indifferent out of Worship that is if the thing to be enquired after be neither required nor Forbidden For the Nature of Indifferency is always the same and what it is in one kind or instance it is in all and if the want of a Law to Require or Forbid doth make a thing Indifferent in Nature or Civil matters it doth also the same in Religious And in things Forbidden by Humane Authority the not being required in Scripture and in things required by Humane Authority the not being Forbidden in Scripture is a Rule we may safely determine the case and judg of the Lawfulness and Indifferency of things in Divine Worship by But I confess the Question requires a more parcicular Answer because things in their Nature Lawful and Indifferent may yet in their use and application become unlawful As it is in Civil cases and Secular matters to be Covered or Uncovered is a thing in it self Indifferent but to be Covered in the presence of such of our Betters as Custom and Law have made it our Duty to stand bare before would be unlawful and it would be no excuse for such an Omission and Contempt that the thing is in it self Indifferent And then much more will this hold where the case is of an higher Nature as it is in the Worship of God where things in themselves Indifferent may become Ridiculous Absurd and Profane and argue rather contempt of God than reverence for him in the Persons using them Again the things may though Grave and Pertinent yet be so numerous that they may obscure and oppress the Service and confound and distract the Mind that should attend to the Observation of them and so for one reason or another are not to be allowed in the Solemnities of Religion Therefore in Answer to the Question I shall add 1. That things Indifferent are so called from their general Nature and not as if in practice and use and all manner of cases they always were so and never unlawful for that they may be by Accident and Circumstance being lawful or unlawful expedient or inexpedient as they are used and applied 2. I observe that there are several Laws which things Indifferent do respect and that may be Required or Forbidden by one Law which is not Forbidden or Required by another and that may be Indifferent in one State which is Unlawful in another and by passing out of one into the other may cease to be Indifferent and therefore when we say things are Indifferent we must understand of what Rank they are and what Law they do respect As for example Humane Conversation and Religious Worship are different Ranks to which things are referred and therefore what may be Indifferent in Conversation may be unlawful in Worship Thus to Enterchange Discourse about Common Affairs is a thing lawful in it self and useful in its place but when practised in the Church and in the midst of Religious Solemnities is Criminal This distinction of Ranks and States of things is useful and necessary to be observed and which if observed would have prevented the objection made by some that if a Church or Authority may Command Indifferent things then they may require us to Pray Standing upon the head c. for that though Indifferent in another case is not in that as being unsutable to it 3. Therefore we must come to some Rules in Divine Worship by which we may know what things in their Nature Indifferent are therein also Indifferent and may be lawfully used It being not enough to plead they are Indifferent in themselves as some unwarily do and therefore presently they may be used For by the same reason a Person may Spit in anothers Face may keep on his Hat before the King c. the Spitting and being Covered being in their Nature Indifferent But now as there are certain Rules which we are to respect in Common and Civil Conversation and which even in that case do tye us up in the use of things otherwise Indifferent So it is as reasonable and must be much more allowed that there are some Rules of the like Nature which we must have a regard to in the Administration of Divine Worship And as in Common matters the Nature of the thing in Actions the end in Conversation the circumstances are to be heeded viz. Time Place Persons as when where before whom we are Covered or Uncovered c. So in Sacred matters the Nature of the thing in the Decency and Solemnity of the Worship the end for which it was appointed in the Edification of the Church and the Peace Glory Security of that in its Order are to be respected And according to these Rules and the circumstances of things are we to judg of the Indifferency Lawfulness or expediency of things used in the Service of God and as they do make for or against and do approach to or recede from these Characters so they are to be rejected or observed and the more or less esteemed But yet we are not come to a conclusion for 1. These are general Rules and so the particulars are nor so easily pointed to 2. Decency and Edification and Order are as was observed before Variable and Uncertain and depend upon Circumstances and so in their Nature not easily determined And 3. Persons have very different Opinions about what is Decent Edifying and Orderly as in the Apostles time in the Church of Rome some were for and others against the Observation of Days and in the Church of Corinth some doubtless were for being Covered others for being Uncovered in Divine Worship And therefore there is somewhat further requisite to give Satisfaction
that which mankind would have been had there been no such particular Institution and was in before that Institution 'T was the nature of the Law and the injoining of it by divine Institution so as it became necessary to them that made it a Yoke and a Act. 15. 18. Yoke intolerable and it was a freedom from that Law that constitutes the Liberty which the Apostle treats of in that Epistle And if it be also to be taken as our Author would have it for a freedom in matters of Worship from any thing but what is of Divine Institution that is a secondary sense and which may be taken from some parity of reason betwixt Case and Case but is not the Apostles nor the primary sense of it But take it how we will in this or the other I there shewed that the Apostles exhortation was of no use to them that Case of Indifferent things Pag. 47. plead it against submission to Authority in Indifferent Things when imposed in or about Divine Worship I am now come to the last general head of the aforesaid §. 5. Tract which contained a short account of the things required in our Church as they were either Duty or Indifferent And for an inforcement of that and conclusion of the whole I shall briefly shew how far this Reverend Author consents to or by his concessions must be bound to acknowledge it Indeed he sometimes doth tell us that Nine parts of Ten of all Dissenters say they cannot comply with things required in the English Case Examin pag. 3. 36. 38. Liturgy because they believe the things sinful and unlawful And elsewhere Two hardly of an Hundred think them Indifferent But whether our Author be of that number or at least has reason so to be I shall leave to his own conscience as to himself and to his concessions as to others In which I shall observe the method taken in the aforesaid Tract where I said all things objected against might be refer'd to Posture Forms and Times and shew'd these to be Natural or Moral circumstances of Action and inseparable from it Now in general he grants what are such may be lawfully used And if we pag. 14. come to particulars he doth at last yield it As for postures what more scrupled and opposed than Kneeling at the Sacrament Yet of this he saith There pag. 22. is no command in it and it is Indifferent that in all probability our Saviour administred it Kneeling and sitting pag. 12. backward upon his Legs that no Dissenter refuseth it pag. 36. because it is not decent but because it is a posture of Adoration that our Church doth not intend it as an homage to the Body of Christ there really present but declares that to do it as to the bread were an Idolatry to pag. 12 13. be abhor'd And in conclusion tells us that those that hesitate in that point fear a posture of Adoration used by Idolatrous Papists which is a consideration of no moment as has been already shewed As to Forms of Prayer he saith God has lest us pag. 30. at liberty what words to use and further that for conceived Prayer we know no body saith no other must be used pag. 22. in Gods Worship and if so then Forms may be lawfully used in it But suppose any scruple the use of them Case of Indiff p. 18. he saith however We know no reason but people may hear them if any scruples the use of them he may yet Case Exam. p. 22. have Communion with the Church we hope though he doth not act in it as a Minister As to time he saith the Law of Nature directs and for Festivals such as Purim amongst the Jews he pag. 29. saith It was generally commanded under the precepts of pag. 26. giving thanks for publick mercies Lastly Are the things required unlawful because imposed He answers Some of us including surely himself are not of that mind nay he affirms that the most pag. 39. sober Dissenters will agree in these things that is Natural pag. 7. circumstances to obey the command of Superiours provided it be not such as by circumstances is made sinful But if imposition would make them sinful such a command must not have been obeyed So that in the conclusion I see no reason why our Reverend Brother and the Dissenters he defends and that in all things as he saith agree to the Doctrine professed in the Articles pag. 1. of the Church of England should dissent from the Liturgy and Ceremonies of it as far as Lay-Communion is concerned in them Nor why he should tell us so much of Goals and Sessions and Judicatures and of the Sufferings they endure when if these things be true pag. 41 44. it 's for not doing what they lawfully can It is no wonder when such with-hold communion from the Church and set up other Churches against it that some call them as he complains perverse and contumacious persons â—bid and others call them damnable Schismaticks and pag. 1. are so bold as to say that such a separation from that Church is a separation from Christ And it 's likely he will meet with such that will speak very severe things of his following appeal to God Judge O thou righteous Judge between these people and those who thus pursue pag. 41 44. them I am far from one God is my witness that is a smiter of his fellow-servants as he calls them nor pag. 41. would have any one do what he verily believeth is unlawful but I do think it is the duty of all to do what they lawfully can to hear readily and consider impartially what may be offered for their satisfaction and to suffer patiently where they cannot receive it This I think every truly conscientious person will do and I should question his conscience that doth it not Certainly to return him his own words if our Brethren have any value for the Glory of God for the good and ibid. peace of others Souls for the preserving the Protestant Religion for the union of Protestants against Popish adversaries for any thing indeed that is good and lovely they will rather break than any longer draw this saw of contention and will do as much as in them lies for the repairing of those breaches which must be confessed are no less dangerous than scandalous to our Religion The Kingdom of God is not Meat and Drink but righteousness and peace and Ioy in the Holy Ghost FINIS ERRATA PAg. 3. l. 13. r. I should p. 30. l. antepenult r. imply p. 31. l. 6. r. expressions p. 39. Marg. add to Lightfoot Hor. in Matth. and Mark p. 46. l. 17. 1. Government Books Printed for FINCHAM GARDINER 1. A. A Perswasive 〈…〉 with the Church of England 2. A Resolution of some Cases of Conscience which Respect Church-Communion 3. The Case of Indifferent things used in the
Evil thing in compliance with it My Judgment is as we have said the guide of my Actions but it may through my negligence be so far misguided it self as that if I follow it it will lead me into the most horrid Crimes in the World And will it be a sufficient Excuse or Justification of my Action in such a Case to say that indeed herein I did but Act according to my Perswasion No verily I may as certainly be damn'd without Repentance for Acting according to my Judgment in some Cases where it is mistaken as I shall be for Acting contrary to it in other Cases where it is rightly informed And the Reason of this is very plain It is not my Judgment or Perswasion that makes Good or Evil Right or Wrong Justice or Injustice Vertue or Vice But it is the Nature of things themselves and the Law of God and of Men under that Commanding or Forbidding things that makes them so If the Moral Goodness or badness of Actions was to be measured by Mens Opinions and Perswasions then Good and Evil Duty and Sin would be the most various uncertain things in the World They would change their Natures as often as Men change their Opinions and that which to Day is a Vertue to Morrow would be a Crime and that which in one Man would be a Heroically good Action would in another Man be a Prodigious Piece of Villany though yet there was no difference in the Action it self or in the Circumstances of the Man that did it save only the difference of Opinion But such consequences as these are intolerable nor indeed do Men either talk or think after this manner Every Man when he speaks of Good or Evil Lawful or Unlawful means some certain fixed thing which it is not in his Power to alter the Nature and Property of That Action is good and a Duty which is either so in it self or made so by some positive Law of God And that Action is Evil and a Sin that is Forbid by God in either of these Ways So that unless it was in our Power to change the Nature of things or to alter the Laws of God It will unavoidably follow that we shall be for ever Obliged to do some Actions and to forbear others whatever our Judgment concerning them is And consequently we may be Guilty of Sin if in these instances we Act contrary to this Obligation though at the same time it should happen that we are firmly perswaded that we ought so to do And thus is our Proposition fully proved but then for the further clearing of it I desire it may be taken notice of that we do not thus lay it down that every mistake of Judgment about Good or Evil doth involve a Man in Sin if he Act according to that mistake But only thus the mistake of a Mans Judgment may be of such a Nature that as it will be a a Sin in him to Act against it so it will likewise be Sin to Act according to it It is not every Error in Morals that brings a Man under the necessity of Sinning if he pursues it in his Actions A Mans Conscience may mistake its Rule in a Hundred instances and yet he may safely enough Act according to it And the Reason is because a Man may entertain a great many mistakes and false Notions of his Duty and Act according to them too and yet in such Actions he shall not Transgress any Law of God Now this that I say holds chiefly in these two inslances For example in the first place if a Man believe a thing to be Commanded by God which yet indeed is not but neither is it Forbidden As if a Man should think himself Obliged to retire himself from his business Seven times or Three times a Day for the purpose of Devotion or to give half of his Yearly Income to Pious and Charitable uses if he can do it without Prejudice to his family Now in this Case he is certainly mistaken in his Duty for the Law of God hath not bound him up to such measures in either of these instances But yet because God hath not on the other hand laid any Commands upon him to the contrary it is certain he may in both these instances Act according to this mistake without any Guilt in the World Nay so long as that mistake continues he is bound to Act accordingly Again in the second place if a Man believe a thing to be Forbidden by Gods Law which yet is not but neither is it Commanded As for instance if a Man think that he ought by Vertue of a Divine Command to abstain from all Meats that are strangled or have Bloud in them or if he believe it unlawful to Play at Cards or Dice or that it is Forbidden by Gods word to let out Money at Interest Why in all these Cases he may follow his Opinion though it be a false one without Sin Nay he is bound to follow it because it is the dictate of his Conscience however his Conscience be mistaken And the reason is plain because though he be mistaken in his Judgment about these matters yet since God hath not by any Law Forbid these things there is no Transgression follows upon Acting according to such a mistake But then in other Cases where a Mans mistake happens to be of such a Nature as that he cannot Act according to his Conscience but he Transgresseth some Law of God by which Conscience ought to be Governed As for instance when a Man looks upon that as a Lawful Action or as a Duty which God hath Forbidden or looks upon that as a Sin or at least an indifferent Action which God hath Commanded here it is that the mistake becomes dangerous And in such Cases the Man is brought into that sad Dilemma we have been representing viz. That if he Act according to his perswasion he Transgresseth Gods Law and so is a Sinner upon that Account If he Acts against his perswasion then he is self condemned and very guilty before God upon that Account Well but is there no avoiding of this Must it be laid down as a constant Universal Truth that in all Cases where a Mans Judgment happens to be contrary to the Rule of his Duty Commanding or Forbidding an Action he must of necessity Sin whether he Act or not Act according to that Judgment If indeed he Act against his Conscience it is readily granted he Sins But it seems very hard that he should be under a necessity of Sinning when he Acts according to it especially when he is perfectly ignorant of or mistaken in the Law against which he Offends This is indeed the great difficulty that occurs in this matter and for the untying it I lay down this third general Proposition viz. That the great thing to be attended to in this Case of a Mans following a mistaken Judgment is the Culpableness or Inculpableness the Faultiness or Innocence of the mistake
a Subject as he doth in his own Cause when he is a Superiour we believe there would be presently an end of this Controversie For let men talk as gravely as they please about the danger of obeying the Publick Laws with a Doubting Conscience Yet I dare appeal to themselves whether they would not think it very unreasonable for any Domestick of theirs over whom they have Lawful Authority to live in Contradiction to the Private Rules and Orders of their Family upon a pretence of doubting whether those Orders were Lawful or no. If a Parent for Instance should command his Son to sit uncovered before him He would not take it for a good Answer from the young man to say Sir I am doubtful whether it be not unlawful to use any such Ceremonies to Men and therefore I pray excuse me if I do not pay you that Respect you require If a Master should order his Servant to provide Dinner for him on the Lords Day and he should reply I would do it with all my heart but that I am in doubt whether it be not forbidden by Gods Word to do any Work on the Sabbath I am not indeed perswaded that it is forbidden but in the mean time I am not satisfied that it is Lawful and therefore till I be resolved in this Point I pray Sir be pleased to Pardon me Would now a Parent or a Master think these Answers Reasonable would he take them in such good part as to think his Son or his Servant had done nothing but what they were bound to do in thus refusing to obey his Commands No I dare say he would not but on the contrary would tell them you are my Son or my Servant and you must leave it to me to judge what is fit for me to command and for you to do I will take care to command you nothing but what is lawful and justifiable But in the mean time you must not think by your foolish Doubts and Scruples so long as you confess you know nothing unlawful in what I bid you do to control my Orders and Commands that I think neither becomes you to do nor me to suffer I dare say most men would judge this a very fitting and just Reply in such a Case And if so it is a strong Argument that we are all naturally apt to think that in purely Doubtful Cases our Superiour is to be obeyed notwithstanding our Doubt and that if in any Case we think otherwise it is where our own Liberty and Interest are concerned and where consequently we may be justly presumed unequal Judges as being prejudiced in favour of our selves Fifthly Let me add this one Consideration more and I have done If in meerly Doubtful Cases our Superiours have not a Power of Determining us what will their Authority signifie If it be not of weight enough when the Scales hang even to turn the Ballance it is truly the lightest thing in the World Indeed it is worth nothing and there will not be left Power enough in those that are to govern us for the securing in any tolerable degree the Peace and Happiness of the Society they are to govern For I pray consider What can there be so wisely Commanded or Provided for either in a Family in a City or in a Kingdom but may be liable to exception and become a matter of Doubt to some Person or other There is nothing in the whole compass of indifferent things and such chiefly are the Matters of Humane Laws but some Person or other will be found to doubt whether it be fit or lawful And if such a Doubt be a just Reason to deny Obedience to the Law or the Command in what a condition are all Families and Corporations and Societies in the World What will be the Consequence of such a Principle Why certainly nothing but perpetual Jars and Disturbances and Confusions For Instance If whenever a Prince declares War against his Enemies it should be supposed Lawful for any Subject to withdraw his Assistance from his Soveraign in Case he doubts whether that War be a Lawful War or no in what a sad case would that Prince or that Kingdom be that is to be supported and protected upon these Terms Every man is hereby made a Judge of the Merits of a War and though he be never so Ignorant never so Unexperienced never so Ignorant never so Unexperienced never so unable to make a Judgment of these momentous Affairs of the Kingdom yet if some Rumours or uncertain Stories have reached his Ears that make him doubt whether this War was lawfully begun or no Why he is upon this Principle warranted to deny not only his Personal Service but his Contributions towards the Charge of that War But these Consequences are intolerable and therefore the Principle from whence they flow must needs be thought intolerable also III. Having thus given the reasons of our Assertion I come now in the Third place to answer the Arguments that are brought on the other side All the Arguments I have met with against the Doctrine we have been establishing may be reduced to Three and of those three the First I have prevented by my stating the Question the Second I have already answered in my Proofs of our Assertion so that the Third only remains to be spoken to However I will name the two first The First Argument is drawn from the mischievous Consequences of our Doctrine For say they If a man should think himself obliged in every doubtful Case to be determined by the Command of his Superiours it would be the ready way to involve him often times in most grievous sins As for instance if a man should so halt between two opinions as to doubt whether Jehovah or Baal was the true God as the Isralites sometimes did and at the same time as it then happened among them the Chief Ruler should command that Baal should be worshipped Why now in this Case say they according to your way of resolving Doubts the man must be obliged to worship an Idol and to renounce the true God This is the Argument But it is no Argument against us Because in the stating of our Question we have excluded all such Doubts out of it as do proceed from a mans Gross and Criminal Ignorance of his Duty as it is Apparent and Notorious that the Doubt in this Instance doth On the contrary we are as forward to acknowledge as they that if any man do an Action that is plainly contradictory to the Laws of God it is not his Ignorance and much less his Doubtfulness that will excuse him though he do it in obedience to his Governours So that though this Argument would fall heavy enough upon those that plead for an Absolute Blind Obedience to Authority in all things indiscriminately which no man of the Church of England doth Yet it doth not at all touch us who only assert That where we doubt equally whether an Action be Lawful or no
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
Galatia yet no one Member of them is ever commanded to come out or separate from those Churches to joyn in a purer Congregation or to avoid mixt Communions or for better Edification For Men to be drunk at the Sacrament was certainly a worse Fault than to kneel at it or for a wicked Man to intrude himself yet the Apostle doth not advise any to withdraw from that Church but only every one to examine himself We ought to do all that we can do without Sin submit to an hundred things which are against our Mind or we had rather let alone for the sake of Peace and Unity so desirable in it self so necessary for the Glory of God the Honour of Religion for our common Interest and Safety for the Preservation of what I may without Vanity call the best Church in the World I cannot stand now to tell you how earnestly this Duty of maintaining Unity amongst Christians is pressed in the New Testament how concerned our Blessed Master was that all his Disciples should agree together and live as Brethren how severely the Holy Apostles chid and rebuked those that caused Divisions and Strife amongst Christians reckoning Schism and Contention amongst the most heinous and dangerous Sins It should make both the Ears one would think of some amongst us to tingle but to hear what Sense the Primitive Christians had of the sinfulness of separating from and breaking the Communion of Christians nay what the old Non-conformists here in England have said of it yet remaining in Print charging the People to be as tender of Church-Division as they were of Drunkenness Whoredom or any other enormous Crime And did Men know and consider the evil of Schism they would not be so ready upon every slight occasion to split upon that Rock Let us therefore divert our Fears and Scruples upon greater Sins It is far more certain that causless Separation from the Communion of Christians is sinful than that Kneeling at the Sacrament or Praying by a Book is such Why then have Men such invincible Scruples about one and none at all about the other They run headlong into the Separate Assemblies which surely are more like to Schismatical Conventicles than any thing in our Church is to Idolatry Let Men be as scrupulous and fearful of offending against the Christian Laws of Subjection Peaceableness and Charity as they are of worshipping God after an impure manner and this alone will contribute much to the making up those Breaches which threaten sudden Ruine to our Church and Nation I only add here that in all that I have now said I am not conscious to my self that I have used any Argument or affirmed any thing but what many of those very Ministers who now dissent from us did teach and maintain and print too against the Independents and other Sectaries that divided from them when they preached in the Parish-Churches And if this was good Doctrine against those who separated upon the account of Corruptions for purer Ordinances in those Days I see not why it is not as good against themselves when upon the very same Pretences and no other they divide from us now The Lord grant that we may all come at last to be of one Mind to live in Peace and Vnity and then the God of Love and Peace shall be with us FINIS SOME CONSIDERATIONS About the CASE OF SCANDAL OR Giving Offence TO Weak Brethren LONDON Printed by H. Hills Jun. for T. Basset at the George in Fleet-street B. Tooke at the Ship in St. Paul's Church-yard and F. Gardiner and the White Horse in Ludgate-street 1683. Of giving OFFENCE TO Weak Brethren IT hath been often observed concerning our Dissenting Brethren that when they are urged to mention any one thing required of the People in the Publick Worship of God in our Parish Churches judged by them absolutely sinful on the account of which their separation from us is necessary and consequently justifiable they either put us off with some inconveniencies inexpediences or corruptions as they call them some things appointed and used which in their opinion render our service less pure and spiritual the chief of which exceptions have been considered in several Discourses lately written with great temper and judgment for the satisfaction of all honest and teachable minds Or else some of them tell us that they are indeed themselves sufficiently perswaded of the lawfulness of all that is enjoyned they do not see but a good Christian may serve God acceptably and devoutly our way and may go to Heaven living and dying in our Communion but then there are many other Godly but weaker Christians of another perswasion with whom they have been long joyned And should they now at least totally forsake them and conform they should thereby give great offence to all those tender Consciences which are not thus convinced of the lawfulness of holding such Communion with our Church in Prayers and Sacraments as is by Law required Which is a sin so Heinous and of such dreadful Consequence that our Saviour tells us St. Matt. 18. 6. Whosoever shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me it were better for him that a Milstone were hanged about his Neck and that he were drowned in the depth of the Sea and in St. Pauls account it is no less than Spiritual Murther a destroying of him for whom Christ dyed Rom 14. 15. Now this Case of giving Offence to weak Brethren I have undertaken briefly to consider where I once for all suppose as all those must do who make this the ground of their refusing to Communicate with our Church that nothing is amongst us imposed as a condition of Communion but what may be done without sin for were any thing in it self sinful required by our Church there could be no room for this Plea of Scandal That alone would be sufficient reason for Separation from us I Discourse therefore at this present only with such who for their own particular could well enough joyn with us but dare not do it for fear of Offending those who yet scruple and are dissatisfied at the use of our Prayers and Ceremonies Nor do I design exactly to handle the whole Doctrine of Scandal or Elaborately explain all the places of Scripture concerning it or state the Cases there treated of Nor shall I now meddle with the Duty of Governours and Superiours how far they ought to condescend to the weakness ignorance prejudices and mistakes of those under their care and charge but I shall confine my self to this one Question Whether there doth lye any obligation upon any private Christian as the case now stands amongst us to absent from his Parish Church or to forbear the use of the Forms of Prayer and Ceremonies by Law appointed for fear of Offending or Scandalizing his weak Brethren Here I shall First of all inquire what is the true notion of a weak Brother Secondly What it is to Offend such an one Thirdly How
Questions besides that it cannot serve any purposes of piety if it declines from duty in any instance it is like giving Alms out of the portion of Orphans or building Hospitals with the Money and spoils of Sacrilege 4. It is further said by Mr. Jeans out of Amesius If determination by Superiours is sufficient to take away the sin of Scandal then they do very ill that they do not so far as is possible determine all things indifferent that so no danger may be left of giving Offence by the use of them Then the Church of Rome is to be praised in that she hath determined so many indifferent things Then St. Paul might have spared all his directions about forbearance out of respect to weak Brethren and fully determined the matters in debate and so put an end to all fear of Scandal This truly seemeth a very odd way of arguing and all that I shall say to it is that it supposeth nothing else worthy to be considered in the making of Laws or in the determinations of Superiours about indifferent things but only this one matter of Scandal and the project it self should it take would prove very vain and unsuccessful For tho we truly say that we are bound to comply with the Orders and Ceremonies of the Church of England they being but few and innocent and so giving no real ground of Offence yet we do not say the same upon supposition our Church had determined all circumstances in Gods Worship she possibly could which would perhaps have been a yoke greater than that of the Ceremonial Law to the Jews nor if she had prescribed as many Ceremonies as the Church of Rome hath done which manifestly tend to the disgrace and Scandal of our Christian Religion and as for the course St. Paul took it is plain that some things upon good reasons were determined by the Apostles as that the Gentile Converts should abstain from blood and things strangled and offered to Idols which decree I presume they might not Transgress out of charity to any of their Brethren who might take Offence at such abstinence and other things for great reason were for a time left at liberty which reason was taken from the present circumstances of those the Apostles had to deal withal tho afterwards as I observed before when that reason ceased determinations were made about those things which St. Paul had left at liberty and if St. Paul had determined the dispute about meats and days one way they who had followed so great an Authority whatever had happened had surely been free from the sin of Scandal but still the Scandal had not been prevented but all the contrary part had been in danger to have been utterly estranged from Christianity and that was reason sufficient why St. Paul did not make any determinations in that case For Governours are not only to take care to free those that obey them from the sin of Scandal but also to provide that as little occasion as is possible may be given to any to be Scandalized There are other Objections offered by Mr. Jeans out of Amesius and Rutherford against this Doctrine of our obligation to obedience to Superiours in things lawful notwithstanding the Scandal that may follow but they either may be Answered from what I have already said or else they chiefly concern the case of Governours and are brought to prove that they act uncharitably and give great Offence contrary to St. Pauls rules who take upon them determinately to impose unnecessary rites by which they know many good Men will be Scandalized but this is not my present business to discourse of tho I cannot forbear saying these two things which I think very easie to make out 1. That our Church of England hath taken all reasonable care not to give any just offence to any sort of persons and the offences that have been since taken at some things in our Constitution could not possibly have been foreseen by those who made our first Reformation from Popery and so they could not be any reason against the first establishment Nor 2. Are they now a sufficient reason for the alteration of it unless we can imagine it reasonable to alter publick Laws made with great wisdom and deliberation as often as they are disliked by or prove Offensive to private persons If this be admitted there then can never be any setled Government and order in the Church because there never can be any establishment that will not be lyable to give such Offence They who now take Offence at what the Church of England enjoyns on the same or a like account will take Offence at whatever can be enjoyned and the same pretences of Scandal will be good against any establishment they themselves shall make for tho they will not use these reasons against their own establishment yet in a short time others will take up their weapons to fight against them and what served to destroy the present Church will be as effectual to overthrow that which shall be set up in its room so that whatever alteration is made if this be allowed for a sufficient ground of it viz. to avoid the Offence that some men take at the present constitution yet still we shall be but where we were and new Offences will arise and so there must be continual changing and altering to gratifie the unreasonable humours and fancies of Men and should any one party of Dissenters amongst us get their Form of Government and Worship established by Law I doubt not but they would Preach to us the very same Doctrine we do now to them They would tell us that private persons must bend and conform to the Laws and not the Laws to private persons that it was our own fault that we were Offended that our weakness proceeded from our unwillingness to receive instruction that the weak were to be governed not to prescribe to their Governours that we must not expect that what was with good reason appointed and ordered should be presently abrogated or changed out of complyance with Mens foolish prejudices and mistakes It is sufficiently known how strict and rigorous botht the Presbyterians and Independents are and have been where they have had any advantage and what little consideration or regard they have had of their Dissenting Brethren tho they would have us so tender of them Thus much I think sufficient to shew that the Precept of Obedience to Superiours in things Lawful is more obligatory than the Precept of avoiding Scandal whence it follows that it is our duty to obey in such instances tho Offence may be taken at it because no sin is to be committed for the avoiding Scandal I might from this head further argue that if we must not commit any sin to avoid giving Offence then it is not Lawful to Separate from our Parish-Churches upon that account because all voluntary Separation from a Church in which nothing that is unlawful is required as a condition of
is apt to breed scruples and perplexities in well meaning but less knowing members of it and by degrees produces a distast or dislike of our Worship and plainly hinders the efficacy of the ordinances of Christ as administred in our Church whilest it creates prejudices in people against them as impure and corrupt and why there should not be a due regard had to those many who are Offended at our Dissenters Conventicle Worship as well as of those who are said to be Scandalized by our Church service I cannot at all guess I shall only say here that irreverent sitting at the receiving the Sacrament of the Lords Supper Mens unmannerly wearing their Hats in time of Divine Worship and oftentimes putting them off but half way at their Prayers their indecent postures and antick gestures at their devotions the extravagancies and follies not to say worse some of them are guilty of in their extemporary effusions the strange uncouth Metaphors and Phrases they use in their Preaching in a word the slovenly performance of Divine Worship amongst the Dissenters is much more Scandalous then all the Ceremonies of our Church can ever be 4. Consider the Scandal that is hereby given to Magistrates and our Superiours by bringing their Laws and Authority into contempt concerning which the forenamed Mr. Jeans in his first Edition of his Discourse about Abstinence from all Appearance of Evil hath these words If saith he it were better to be thrown into the bottom of the Sea with a Millstone about ones Neck than to offend a little one a poor and illiterate Artizan what expression shall we then find answerable to the heinousness of a Scandal given to a Pious Magistrate to a Religious Prince to a Parliament and Convocation to an whole Church and Commonwealth 5. By this Separation from the Church great Scandal is given to the Papists not that they are displeased at it they are not indeed offended in that sense but this serves wonderfully to harden them in their false and Idolatrous Worship it increaseth their confidence that their Church is the only true Church of Christ because amongst them only is found Peace and Unity and this is a mighty temptation to many wavering Christians to turn Papists insomuch that Mr. Baxter hath told us that Thousands have been drawn to Popery or confirmed in it by this Argument already and he saith of himself that he is persuaded that all the Arguments else in Bellarmin and all other Books that ever were written have not done so much to make Papists in England as the multitude of Sects among our selves This indeed is a great Scandal to our Protestant Religion and is that which the Papists are on all occasions so forward to object against us and hit us in the teeth with and by our hearty uniting with the Church of England we may certainly wrest out of their hands the most dangerous weapon they use against the Reformation 6. This tends to the Scandal of Religion in general It prejudiceth men against it as an uncertain thing a matter of endless dispute and debate it makes some Men utterly reject it as consisting mostly in little trifles and niceties about which they observe the greatest noise and contention to be made or as destructive of the Publick Peace of Societies when they see what dangerous feuds and quarrels commence from our Religious Differences and all the disorder and confusion that they have caused here in England shall by some be charged upon Christianity it self Thus our causeless Separations and Divisions open a wide door to Atheisme and all kind of Prophaneness and Irreligion After this manner it was of old and always will be where there are Parties in Religion and one contends that their Separation is lawful and the other that it is unlawful the Common people soon become doubtful and ready to forsake all Religion I might add here that such Separations necessarily occasion breach of Charity they beget implacable enmities and animosities Hence cometh strife emulation envying one Party continually endeavouring to overtop the other watching for one anothers halting rejoycing in one anothers sins and misfortunes constant undermining one another to the disturbance of the Publick Government and endangering the Civil Peace of all which and much more than I can now mention the present distracted condition of our Nation is so great and undenyable an evidence that there need no more words to shew the mischiefs that attend such Divisions and now let any one judge whether the Peace and Unity of the Church the maintaining of Charity amongst Brethren the keeping out Popery and Atheism the preservation of the Authority of the Magistrate and quiet of the Society we are Members of the honour and credit of our Religion Lastly Whether giving Offence to all both Conformists and Nonconformists those only excepted of our own particular Sect and Division nay Scandalizing them also in the true and proper sense of Scandal be not of far greater and more weighty consideration than the fear of displeasing or grieving some few weak dissatisfied Brethren Wo to those by whom Offences come But these things I have very lightly touched because they have been the subject of many Sermons and discourses lately published To sum up all I have said Since they who dissent from the Church of England are not such weak persons as St. Paul all along describes and provides for since we cannot by our Conformity really Scandalize or Offend them in that sense in which the Scriptures use those words since tho we did give Offence to them by our Conformity yet that would not excuse us from doing our Duty and by refusing to Conform we should do both them and others greater hurt and mischief I think I may safely conclude that there cannot lie any obligation upon any private Christian as the case now stands amongst us to absent himself from his Parish-Church or to forbear the use of the Forms of Prayer or Ceremonies by Law appointed for fear of Offending his weak Brethren I end all with one word of Advice First to those who are not convinced of the lawfulness of Conformity Secondly to those who are satisfied that it is lawful 1. To those who are not convinced of the lawfulness of Conformity and therefore urge so hard that they ought not to be Offended by us I would beseech them that they would take some care and make some Conscience to avoid giving any needless Offence to those of the Church of England and this cannot but be thought a reasonable request since they require all others to be so tender of them They ought not therefore to meet in such numbers nor at the same time at which we assemble to Worship God in our publick Churches Let them not affront our Service and Common-Prayers nor revile our Bishops and Ministers nor put on their Hats when at any time they chance to be present at our Service in our Churches nor talk nor read in Books nor make sour
cannot charge the Church with any plain degeneracy or open Apostacy from the Doctrine or Practice of the Scriptures When any particular Church degenerates plainly either in Doctrine or Worship there I am not concerned to determine how far she forfeits all that respect that she might otherwise claim from men nor how much the Credit of a single person may vie with her Perhaps when the Church was degenerated into Arrianism the judgement of Athanasius and some few other Bishops was more to be regarded than that of a whole Synod and in the horrid Apostacy of the Roman Church perhaps the single Doctrine of John Huss was preferable to that of the whole Council of Constance But still in both these Cases or any other parallel ones that respect derived it self not from their persons but was wholly owing to truth and the holy Scriptures that stood with them But blessed be God this is not our case our Church doth challenge and triumph over all charges of any such Apostacy and all the disputes and contests with her by any of these men are about things confessedly doubtful and such as are in their own nature indifferent things about which to say the least it is as possible that single persons may erre and mistake as it is for the Church unless in this also as in many other instances men fall in with the grossest Tenet in Popery that single persons may more reasonably pretend to Infallibility than the whole Church Every man derides and thinks he can baffle all the pretences of the Bishop of Rome to Infallibility and therefore should blush and be ashamed of his own either arrogating it to himself or ascribing it to another For the truth is I do not see but his pretences are as just as another man's i. e. indeed they are both monstrously unreasonable And yet alas this is not the least source of the unhappiness of this Age nor need I be condemned for staying a little while to drop a tear upon it Men turn Dictators in Religion and impose their own Dreams as magisterially upon their Followers as if they were oracular and I am perswaded their Disciples hang as much upon their single authority and confidence and yield as absolute and implicite Faith to all their Doctrines as ever any poor Papists against whom they exclaim so tragically for blind Obedience and Faith They are kept in as absolute subjection to their placits and dare no more read and consult Books that are written to inform them than a poor Papist dare let a prohibited Book be seen in his House by a Father of the Inquisition If ever people followed their leaders blindfold these men do they will not hear any thing against them They have their persons in admiration and I wish I could not say of some for filthy lucres sake or at least some mean reasons equivalent thereto They will not so much as submit to means of Information they commonly say they are satisfied already and the single blustering of one of their own Rabbies shall signifie more with them than all the Arguments of the most Learned and sober men living beside But I am insensibly drawn aside from my chief Subject which is not to treat so much of a respect of Credit and Faith as of Tenderness and Charity which is certainly as justly due from us to the Church as to any private persons whatsoever and it cannot but be as unreasonable to fail in the one as in the other It is every whit as unjust for men to be more regardless of grieving and troubling the Church of Christ as it is foolish and unreasonable to set up one single man's opinion against that of many others that are in the same circumstances and advantages of Knowledge and every way both as knowing and as upright as himself Whatever considerations there are to determine our Charity to single persons there are the same at least to make it necessary towards the Church and as strong reasons to restrain us from offending the one as the other Whatever becomes an Argument in one case is equally so also in the other and if it be not as effectual with us we are partial in the Law and distinguish without any reasons but those of our own partial and unjust respects Let men be pleased to look into the Scriptures and consult the practices of our Lord himself or his Apostles after him and their thoughts will soon be resolved in this matter they will find the one calling for as much deference and respect to the Church as to private persons and the other upon all occasions as careful to pay it and in all cases extreamly careful not to give offence to it in any thing whatsoever as were easie to shew in Instances enough that are plain and obvious to all that read and can scarce pass unobserved by any This is the first Consideration and I appeal to all if it be not a very easie Postulatum a very modest and reasonable intimation and yet I assure you it were a good point gained and a very good step towards our peace were men hearty in their concessions of it Would men pay but the same deference to the Church of Christ and her Constitutions as they readily do to their own single Opinions or the confident suggestions of some admired Leader we might quickly hope to see some end of our Questions and Disputes And would they be but as tender of giving any offence to the Publick as they are of doing so to every little person of their own party we might begin to hope that the Constitutions of our Church might gain some respect and some measure of peaceableness and modesty bless the Inhabitants of this Nation once more 2. But this is too little to suggest and the lesser part of what I would propose to consideration upon this Subject and therefore in the second place I desire it may be considered whether we ought not to have a greater respect to the Church of God than to any single or private persons whatsoever And truly I think this is as reasonable a Postulatum as the other and that which will be as soon granted true by all that duly consider things In all things whatsoever the Publick requires more respect from us than any private person and the welfare of the one is to be preferred by us before that of the other If the Church of Christ and any private Party of men come in competition and it so happen that we probably may give offence to one we ought to let our regard to the Church sway and determine us and think it a less evil that some particular persons be offended than that trouble or offence be given to the whole Church That saying of Caiaphas recorded Joh. 11. 50. though spoken with an unjust and barbarous design yet is a certain and rational truth It is expedient that one man suffer and not the whole Nation perish And it is certainly a less evil
that a Church is guilty of Sin in agreeing in some indifferent things with the Church of Rome that I must needs profess I have often wondred how this should become a Question Seeing whatsoever is of an indifferent nature as it is not Commanded so neither is it Forbidden by any Moral or Positive Law and where there is no Law the Apostle saith there is no transgression Sin being according to his definition the transgression of the Law And whereas certain Circumstances will make things that in themselves are neither duties nor sins to be either duties or sins and to fall by Consequence under some Divine Command or Prohibition I have admired how this Circumstance of an indifferent thing 's being used by the Church of Rome can be thought to alter the Nature of that thing and make it cease to be indifferent and become sinful But that it doth so is endeavoured to be proved by that general Prohibition to the Israelites of imitating the doings of the Aegyptians and Canaanites in those Words Lev. 18. 2. After the doings of the Land of Aegypt wherein ye dwell shall ye not do and after the doings of the Land of Canaan whither I bring you shall ye not do neither shall ye walk in their Ordinances This place divers of the Defenders of Nonconformity have laid great weight upon as a proof of the Sinfulness of Symbolizing with the Church of Rome Even in indifferent things But I chuse to forbear the Naming of any whose Arguings I purpose to inquire into because I would prevent if it be possible the least suspition in the Readers that I design in this Performance to expose any Mans weakness in particular or that I am therein Acted by any Personal Piques Now then as to the Text now Cited not to insist upon the Fallaciousness of Arguing without mighty caution from Laws given by Moses to the Israelites so as to infer the Obligation of Christians who are under a dispensation so different from theirs and in Circumstances so vastly differing from those they were in I say not to insist upon the Fallaciousness of this way of Arguing which all considering Persons must needs be aware of if this general Prohibition be not at all to be limited then it will follow from thence that the Israelites might have no usages whatsoever in common with the Aegyptians or Canaanites and therefore in as general terms as the Prohibition runs our Brethren must needs acknowledge that there is a restriction therein intended it being the most absurd thing to imagine that the Israelites were so bound up by God as to be Obliged to an unlikeness to those People in all their Actions For as the Apostles said of the Christians if they were never to Company with Wicked Men they must needs go out of the World we may say of the Israelites in reference to this Case of theirs they then must needs have gone out of the World Now if this general Prohibition After their doings ye shall not do be to be limited and restrained what way have we to do it but by considering the Context and confining the restriction to those Particulars Prohibited in the following verses But I need not shew that the particulars forbidden in all these viz. from v. 5th to the 24th were not things of an indifferent Nature but Incestuous Copulations and other abominable Acts of Vncleanness And God doth Expresly enough thus restrain that general Prohibition in the 24th v. in these Words Defile not your selves in any of these things for in all these the Nations are Defiled which I cast out before you But those that alledge this Text to the foresaid purpose will not hear of the general Proposition's being thus limited by the Context as apparent as it is that it necessarily must because say they we find that God forbids the Israelites in other places to imitate Heathens in things of an Indifferent and Innocent Nature To this I Answer First That supposing this were so it doth not from thence follow that God intended to forbid such imitations in this place the contrary being so manifest as we have seen But Secondly That God hath any where prohibited the Israelites to Symbolize with Heathens in things of a meer Indifferent and Innocent Nature I mean that he hath made it unlawful to them to observe any such Customs of the Heathens meerly upon the account of their being like them is a very great mistake Which will appear by considering those places which are produced for it One is Deut. 14. 1. You shall not Cut your selves nor make any baldness between your Eyes for the dead Now as to the former of these prohibited things who seeth not that 't is Vnnatural and therefore not indifferent And as to the latter viz. the disfiguring of themselves by Cutting off their Eyebrows this was not meerly an indifferent thing neither It being a Custom at Funerals much disbecoming the People of God which would make them look as if they sorrowed for the dead as Men without hope Another place insisted upon for the same purpose is Lev. 19. 19. Thou shalt not let thy Cattle-Gender with a divers kind thou shalt not sow thy ground with mingled seed nor shall a Garment of Linnen and Woollen come upon thee Now these three 't is said are things of so indifferent a Nature that none can be more indifferent I answer 'T is readily granted But where is it said that these things were forbidden because the Heathens used them Maimonides indeed as I learn from Grotius saith that the Aegyptians used these mixtures of Seeds and of Linnen and Woollen in many of their Magical Exploits but 't is universally acknowledged that these things among many other were forbidden to the Jews as Mystical instructions in Moral Duties I have found no other Text made use of to prove meer indifferent things to have been forbidden the Israelites only in regard of Heathens using them which make more for this purpose than these two do nor hardly another that makes so much But if there were never so many it is not worth our while to concern ourselves now with them because though we should suppose a great number of instances of such things as were forbidden those People for no other reason but because the Egyptians or Canaanites used them yet this would signifie nothing to the proving Our Churches Symbolizing with that of Rome in indifferent things to be Unlawful because there is not the like reason why in such things we may not Symbolize with Papists that there was why the Jews should be forbidden to Symbolize in such with those Heathens For there could not be too great a distance and unlikeness between those People and these in their usages in regard of their strangely Vehement inclination to their Superstitious and Idolatrous Practices And upon this account the distance was made wider as our Brethren themselves will acknowledge between the Jews and the Pagans than it ought to be between
from thence on supposition you can make good proof of it It is plain your design in all this talk is to justifie if not a total yet a partial Separation You do indeed to conceal nothing of your Candour after all acknowledge * * * p. 7. That you are very far from thinking that there are not multitudes of Holy and Learned men in our Ecclesia Loquens that in these things are of another mind And therefore I hope you will not excuse Separation from their Churches Nay you say †††p. 9. That hundreds of the Speaking Church are as we believe as far from symbolizing with the Church of Rome you mean in Doctrine as the Articles And that in this thing a Separation from the Silent as well as this part of the Speaking Church must needs be highly Sinfull And in thus declaring you condemn the generality of those that Separate it being well known that Communion with those whom you will acknowledge to be Orthodox Divines and those which you account Heterodox is much alike boggled at But I fear when all is done you condemn onely separation in Heart from these Orthodox men your Undertaking in your 8th Page makes me fear this viz. That all the Valuable persons in Presbyterian and Independent Congregations shall give any reasonable assurance that they are not in Heart divided from a Single Person in the Church of England that speaketh in matters concerning Doctrine as our Church doth in her Articles But if you think that all the Communion you are obliged to hold with these Divâ—nes is onely that of the Heart that is thinking them Orthodox and loving them as such but allow it to be lawfull to refuse to worship God with them nay and not so much as to hear them we thank you for nothing This is such Church Communion as will well consist with rending and tearing the Church in pieces But I pray do not think that all this while I take it for granted that 't is lawfull to separate from the Congregations of those Divines whom we take to be in some points Heterodox Nay upon supposition that your Ecclesia Loquens did as generally depart from the Doctrine of our Church as the Pharisees in our Saviour's time did from the Law of Moses I shall be far from granting that Separation from their Congregations is lawfull except there be a constraint laid upon us to subscribe to their Heterodox Opinions till you can prove that our Saviour allowed of the Jews Separation from the Pharisees which you never can but the contrary who cannot shew He bad his Disciples indeed to beware of the Leaven of the Pharisees and so are we to beware of the Leaven of such Heterodox Teachers but not so to beware of it as not to come within their Churches for that that caution of our Saviour is not to be so interpreted appears not onely from his own practice who was far from being a Separatist from the Jewish Temple or Synagogues and by what he saith Mat. 23. 2 3. In the last Paragraph of your 9th Page you return to speak more directly to our Author And first you reflect upon these words in his Book p. 24. But I am so far from taking it for granted that a Church is guilty of Sin in agreeing in some indifferent things with the Church of Rome that I must needs profess I have often wondered how this should become a Question Seeing whatsoever is of an indifferent nature as it is not commanded so neither is it forbidden by any Moral or Positive Law and where there is no Law there is no Transgression c. To this you say that it is an obvious begging the Question And it might be so if our Author stopt here but he thus proceeds And whereas certain circumstances will make things that in themselves are neither Duties nor Sins to be either Duties or Sins and to fall by Consequence under some Divine Command or Prohibition I have admired how this Circumstance of an indifferent thing 's being used by the Church of Rome can be thought to alter the nature of that thing and make it cease to be indifferent and become sinfull So that this is the Obvious meaning of our Author's words that he hath wondered how it should become a Question whether a Church may lawfully agree in some things with the Church of Rome which the Law of God hath not forbidden And whereas some things that are not forbidden by the Law of God directly are notwithstanding forbidden thereby Consequentially he hath admired how the mere Circumstance of a thing 's being practised by the Church of Rome can speak it to be forbidden by God's Law Consequentially And then he immediately betakes himself to the consideration of some of those Laws given to the Israelites that prohibit their imitating the Doings of the Egyptians and Canaanites which are urged by Nonconformists to prove it unlawfull to imitate the Church of Rome in things of a mere indifferent nature and that that circumstance of their being practised by that Church makes them cease to be indifferent and to become Sinfull And endeavours to shew that this cannot with any shew of reason be gathered from these Laws And how I pray is this an Obvious begging of the Question which is Whether a Church's symbolizing or agreeing in some things with the Church of Rome be a warrant for separatian from the Church so agreeing This I say is the Question which our Author handles But you next make a Question for him and say it is this * * * p. 10. Whether a thing in its own nature indifferent be still indifferent as to Christians use in God's worship when it hath been once used in Idolatrous Services if the use of it be neither Naturally necessary to the worship of God as it is an humane Act nor suitable to the Ends of it nor such without which it cannot in common judgment be decently performed But our Author much more wonders how this should become a Question than how that of his own propounding should For First There are three apparent Contradictions in it It being a contradiction to say concerning the same thing that it is in its own nature indifferent and yet naturally necessary to the Worship of God as it is an humane Act. It being so too to say of the same thing that 't is in its own nature indifferent and yet Vnsuitable to the Ends of Divine Worship It being a contradiction again to say of the same thing that 't is in its own nature indifferent and yet such as without which the Worship of God cannot in common judgment be decently performed For you must mean by things in their own nature indifferent things that are so in Divine Worship for otherwise you trifle egregiously in putting this Question or make your Nonconformists so to doe for whom you put it But you abuse them if you do so for that which divers of them do
our Saviour the great friend and lover of souls A command so reasonable so easie so full of blessings and benefits to the faithfull observers of it One would think it were no difficult matter to convince men of their duty in this particular and of the necessity of observing so plain an Institution of our Lord that it were no hard thing to persuade men to their interest and to be willing to partake of those great and manifold blessings which all Christians believe to be promised and made good to the frequent and worthy Receivers of this Sacrament Where then lyes the difficulty what should be the cause of all this backwardness which we see in men to so plain so necessary and so beneficial a duty The truth is men have been greatly discouraged from this Sacrament by the unwary pressing and inculcating of two great truths the danger of the unworthy receiving of this holy Sacrament and the necessity of a due preparation for it Which brings me to the III. Third Particular I proposed which was to endeavour to satisfie the Objections and Scruples which have been raised in the minds of men and particularly of many devout and sincere Christians to their great discouragement from the receiving of this Sacrament at least so frequently as they ought And these Objections I told you are chiefly grounded upon what the Apostle says at the 27th verse Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread and drink this cup of the Lord unworthily is guilty of the body and bloud of the Lord. And again ver 29. He that eateth and drinketh unworthily eateth and drinketh damnation to himself Upon the mistake and misapplication of these Texts have been grounded two Objections of great force to discourage men from this Sacrament which I shall endeavour with all the tenderness and clearness I can to remove First That the danger of unworthy receiving being so very great it seems the safest way not to receive at all Secondly That so much preparation and worthiness being required in order to our worthy Receiving the more timorous sort of devout Christians can never think themselves duly enough qualified for so sacred an Action 1. That the danger of unworthy receiving being so Obj. 1 very great it seems the safest way wholly to refrain from this Sacrament and not to receive it at all But this Objection is evidently of no force if there be as most certainly there is as great or a greater danger on the other hand viz. in the neglect of this Duty And so though the danger of unworthy receiving be avoided by not receiving yet the danger of neglecting and contemning a plain Institution of Christ is not thereby avoided Surely they in the Parable that refused to come to the marriage-feast of the King's Son and made light of that gracious invitation were at least as faulty as he who came without a wedding garment And we find in the conclusion of the Parable that as he was severely punished for his disrespect so they were destroyed for their disobedience Nay of the two it is the greater sign of contempt wholly to neglect the Sacrament than to partake of it without some due qualification The greatest indisposition that can be for this holy Sacrament is one's being a bad man and he may be as bad and is more likely to continue so who wilfully neglects this Sacrament than he that comes to it with any degree of reverence and preparation though much less than he ought And surely it is very hard for men to come to so solemn an Ordinance without some kind of religious awe upon their spirits and without some good thoughts and resolutions at least for the present If a man that lives in any known wickedness of life do before he receive the Sacrament set himself seriously to be humbled for his sins and to repent of them and to beg God's grace and assistence against them and after the receiving of it does continue for some time in these good resolutions though after a while he may possibly relapse into the same sins again this is some kind of restraint to a wicked life and these good moods and fits of repentance and reformation are much better than a constant and uninterrupted course of sin Even this righteousness which is but as the morning cloud and the early dew which so soon passeth away is better than none And indeed scarce any man can think of coming to the Sacrament but he will by this consideration be excited to some good purposes and put upon some sort of endeavour to amend and reform his life and though he be very much under the bondage and power of evil habits if he do with any competent degree of sincerity and it is his own fault if he do not make use of this excellent means and instrument for the mortifying and subduing of his lusts and for the obtaining of God's grace and assistence it may please God by the use of these means so to abate the force and power of his lusts and to imprint such considerations upon his mind in the receiving of this holy Sacrament and preparing himself for it that he may at last break off his wicked course and become a good man But on the other hand as to those who neglect this Sacrament there is hardly any thing left to restrain them from the greatest enormities of life and to give a check to them in their evil course nothing but the penalty of humane Laws which men may avoid and yet be wicked enough Heretofore men used to be restrained from great and scandalous vices by shame and fear of disgrace and would abstain from many sins out of regard to their honour and reputation among men But men have hardened their faces in this degenerate Age and those gentle restraints of modesty which governed and kept men in order heretofore signifie nothing now adays Blushing is out of fashion and shame is ceased from among the children of men But the Sacrament did always use to lay some kind of restraint upon the worst of men and if it did not wholly reform them it would at least have some good effect upon them for a time If it did not make men good yet it would make them resolve to be so and leave some good thoughts and impressions upon their minds So that I doubt not but it hath been a thing of very bad consequence to discourage men so much from the Sacrament as the way hath been of late years And that many men who were under some kind of check before since they have been driven away from the Sacrament have quite let loose the reins and prostituted themselves to all manner of impiety and vice And among the many ill effects of our past confusions this is none of the least That in many Congregations of this Kingdom Christians were generally disused and deterred from the Sacrament upon a pretence that they were unfit for it and being so they must necessarily incur the