which he may judge of what sort the action is This Measure is the Rule of Conscience and Conscience is no farther safe than as it follows that Rule Now this Measure or Rule of Conscience can be nothing else but the Law of God because nothing can be a Duty or Sin but what is commanded or forbidden by God's Law and that thing only is indifferent which his Law neither commands nor forbids Now by the Law of God which is the Rule of Conscience I mean God's Will for the Goverment of Men's actions whether declar'd by Nature or Revelation By the Law of Nature I mean those Principles of Good and Evil just and unjust which God has written in our minds and which every Man is naturally convinced of Some things are eternally Good as to Worship God c. and we know them to be our Duty others are eternally Evil and we know them to be Sins by the light of Reason and the Apostle saies the Gentiles had this Law written in their hearts But Christians have the Law of Revelation too contain'd in the Scriptures by which God do's not make void the Law of Nature but declare it's Precepts more certainly and accurately with greater strength and greater rewards and punishments than before By this also he has perfected the Law of Nature and obliged us to higher instances of Vertue and added some positive Laws as for instance to believe in Christ to pray to God in Christ's Name to be Baptiz'd and partake of the Lord's Supper Thus then the Natural and Reveal'd Law of God is the great Rule of Conscience Only we must remember that by the Law of Nature is to be understood not only the chief and general heads of it but also the necessary deductions from these heads and by the Reveal'd Law is to be understood not only express Commands and Prohibitions but also the necessary consequences of those commands and prohibitions So that whatever is by direct inference or parity of reason commanded or forbidden is a Duty or a Sin tho' it be not commanded or forbidden in the Letter of the Law And if it be neither commanded nor forbidden by the Letter of the Law nor yet by inference or parity of reason the thing is indifferent and we may do it or let it alone with a safe Conscience III. In the third place I must consider the power of Human Laws to oblige the Conscience for in a secondary sence they are a part of the Rule of Conscience by vertue of and in subordination to the Laws of God This I shall explain in four propositions First It is most certain that God's Law Commands us to obey the Laws of Men. For all Society is founded in this Principal Law of Nature that we must obey our Governours in all honest and just things Otherwise no State City or Family can subsist happily And 't is most evident that God Commands us in Scripture to Obey them that have the Rule over us and to be Subject not only for Wrath but also for Conscience sake So that a Man is bound in duty to obey Human Laws and consequently they are a part of the Rule of Conscience Secondly Human Laws do not bind the Conscience by any Vertue in themselves but merely by Vertue of God's Law who has commanded us both by Nature and Scripture to obey our Superiours Conscience is our judgment of our actions according to God's Law and has no Superiour but God alone but yet we are bound in Conscience to obey Men because therein we obey God Thirdly Human Laws do no farther bind the Conscience than as they are agreeable to the Laws of God so that when Men command any thing sinful we must not obey For God has not given any Man power to alter his Laws or impose any thing inconsistent with them Fourthly Tho' Human Laws generally speaking bind the Conscience yet I do not say that every Human Law tho' consistent with God's Law do's at all times and in all cases oblige every Man's Conscience to active obedience to it so as that he sins against God if he transgress it For then who could be innocent But First where the Public or some private Person shall suffer damage or inconvenience by our not observing the Law or Secondly where the Manner of our not obeying it argues contempt of Authority or sets an ill example there the transgression of a Human Law is sinful and not in other cases So that there are many cases in which a Man may transgress a purely Human Law and yet not be a sinner before God provided I say there be no contempt of Authority or ill example in it for either of these makes it a sin For this I insist upon that God's Law and the public good require that Authority be held sacred and therefore when Governours insist upon a thing tho' it be trifling or inconvenient yet we must not even seem to contest the matter with them provided it be not sinful For to affront their Authority or to encourage others by our example to do it is a greater evil to the public than our obedience to an inconvenient Law can easily be IV. I shall now consider the power of Human Laws to oblige the Conscience in the instance of Church-Communion And here I affirm That every Man is bound in Conscience to join with the Church establish'd by Law in the place where he lives so long as that Church is a true sound part of the Catholic Church and nothing sinful is requir'd as a condition of Communion with it For I have already shewn that Men are bound to obey Human Laws that are not contrary to the Laws of God and therefore they must obey in Church-Matters unless it can be shew'd that God has forbidden Men to make Laws about Religion which can never be done But farther I earnestly desire it may be well consider'd by Dissenters that we are all really bound by the Laws of Jesus Christ and the Nature of his Religion to preserve as much as in us lies the Unity of the Church which consists not only in professing the same faith but joining together in the same worship And therefore whoever breaks this Unity doth really transgress the Laws of Jesus Christ and is guilty of Schism which is so much caution'd against and so highly condemn'd in Scripture Those therefore who think they are no more bound to come to Church than to obey any common Act of Parliament are greatly mistaken because they break not only the Law of Man but the Law of God For tho' all the circumstances of Worship are Human Institutions yet the Public Worship it self under Public Lawful Governours is of Divine appointment and no Man can renounce it without sinning against Christ as well as Human Laws A Divine Law cloath'd with circumstances of Man's appointment creates another kind of obligation than a Law that commands a thing perfectly indifferent In the former case we must obey because 't is
p. 1. c. p. 57. prove it and so do's the (c) Jerubbaal or the Pleader impleaded p. 18. 27. Authour of Jerubbaal and if I shou'd proceed to particulars I might fill a Volume with (d) Concerning her Doctrin See the Opinion of the Presbyt in Corbet's Discourse §. 21. p. 43. Baxter's 5 Disp Pref p. 6. of the Independents in the Peace Offering p. 12. See also Baxter's Def. of his Cure part 1. p. 64. part 2. p. 3. Wadsworth's Separ yet no Schism p. 60 62. Throughton's Apology c. 3. p. 106. and of the Brownists in their Apol. p. 7. Anno 1604. See also Bayly's Dissuasive c. 2. p. 20 33. Stillingfleet's Unreasonableness of Separ part 1. §. 9. p. 31. for Opinions concerning her Worship See Hildersham's Lect. 26. on Joh. p. 121. Contin of Morn Exercise Serm. 4. p. 91. Throughton's Apology p. 104. Peace Offering p. 17. for Opinions concerning the Truth sufficiency and ability of her Ministry See Bradshaw's Unreasonableness of Separ p. 16 27 37. Grave and Mod. Confut. p. 28. Apologet. Narrat p. 6. Cotton's Infant Baptism p. 181. for the defence of the Ordination of our Ministry See Jus Divi. Minist Evangel part 2. p. 12 16 17 25 c. Jus Div. regim Eccles p. 264 c. Cawdry's Independency a great Schism p. 116. and his defence of it p. 35 37. Testimonies 'T is true they own her to be a true Church upon different Grounds because some of the Dissenting Writers are for a National and others for a Congregational Church but they (e) Jus div Min. Evangel p. 12 c. Brinsly's Church-Remedy p. 41 42. Cawdry's Independency a great Schism p. 60 89 132 172. Tombes's Theodulia §. 15 16. pref c. 9. §. 3. Crofton's Reformation not Separation p. 10. and Bethshemesh Clouded p. 101 c. Church Refor p. 42. Corbet's account of the Principles c p. 26. Throughton's Apology p. 103. Baxter's defence of his Cure part 2. p. 178. Cotton's way clear'd p. 8. his Letter p. 3. Hooker's Survey pref part 1. p. 47. Goodwin on the Ephes p. 447 448 449. all agree in this that the Church of England is a true Church tho' they say she is a corrupted one Nay our (f) Grave and Mod. Confut. p. 6. Goodwin's Sion Coll. visited Bradshaw's Unreasonableness of the Separation p. 97. Brethren do not only grant her to be a true Church but also declare her to be one of the most valuable if not the very best in the world But I shall say no more of this matter only I refer the Reader to Mr. Baxter's Cure of Ch. divis dir 56. p. 263. That the Establish'd Church is also a sound as well as a true part of the Catholic Church might easily appear by an examination of it but I shall not enter upon so large a work because it is not necessary for I conceive that our Dissenters will be not only willing but forward to acknowledge it when I shall have answer'd those objections which they are pleas'd to make against our Communion and shewn that those Pleas which they raise from them are by no means sufficient to make Separation lawful I proceed therefore to the several Pleas and design to examine them in their natural order CHAP. II. The use of indifferent things in the Worship of God no objection against our Communion THE First Objection against our Communion is drawn from the use of indifferent things Our Adversaries say that indifferent things may not lawfully be us'd in the worship of God and that our Communion is therefore unlawful because we require men to use such indifferent things Now that this objection may be fully answer'd I shall do four things viz. First I shall shew what is meant by indifferent things Secondly I shall shew that indifferent things may be lawfully us'd in divine Worship Thirdly I shall consider how we may know what things are indifferent in the worship of God Fourthly I shall shew how we are to determine our selves in the use of indifferent things with respect to the worship of God I. Then I shall shew what is meant by indifferent things All actions are either duties or sins or indifferent that is such as are neither duties nor sins Duties or sins are so either in their own nature or by Divine Law That which is commanded is a duty that which is forbidden is a sin but that which is neither commanded nor forbidden is indifferent because 't is neither duty nor sin and we may either chuse or refuse it without sin For where no law is there is no transgression Rom. 4.15 Duty is duty because 't is commanded and sin is sin because 't is forbidden and indifferent is indifferent because 't is neither commanded nor forbidden So that we may as well know by the silence of the Law what is indifferent as we may know by its Authority what is a duty or a sin For where there is no Law for or against the matter is indifferent As for instance suppose there should be a dispute concerning daies set apart for the service of God how must this be determin'd but by the Law of Nature or Revelation Now if neither the Law of Nature nor the Law of Revelation say any thing of the observation of such daies then we are at liberty to observe or not to observe them II. Indifferent things may be us'd in the Divine worship as appears 1. From the consideration of the Gospel-rules of worship which except what relate to the two Sacraments are taken from the Nature of the thing and were the same in all Ages viz. such as respect Order Decency and Edification 1 Cor. 14.26 40. So that we are no otherwise bound than all the world ever was and therefore since others have always determin'd the outward circumstances of worship we have also the same liberty The Rules themselves are general and the Apostles rarely descend to particulars but whenever they do they shew how far Custom Charity and the reason of the thing ought to govern us as in the case of a Man's being uncover'd in God's worship 1 Cor. 11.4 7. for they thought it impossible or not worth their while to tie all Nations to the same Modes since God may be honour'd by one as well as the other If it be said that when things are determin'd in general the particulars are therein Virtually determin'd and so are not indifferent I answer that then nothing is indifferent since there are general rules about every thing As for example all Meats are now lawful to Christians but yet there are general rules by which we are determin'd in the use of them such as our own constitution c. but those rules do not make the Meats to be other than indifferent So there are general rules for God's worship but yet the particulars are indifferent and prudence is to regulate them The general rules of Order Decency and Edification depend upon variable
God's own Law in the other we only obey Man because God has obliged us in general to obey our Superiours God commands every Subject to pay tribute to whom tribute is due but Human Authority determines out of what goods and in what proportion he must pay Now because Human Authority interposes if a Man can by fraud detain the King 's right do's he incur no other guilt than breaking an Act of Parliament and being liable to penalties if he be detected Yes certainly for Tribute being injoin'd by God's Law the Man is unjust and breaks God's Law and his willingness to suffer the penalties do's not lessen his guilt The Case is the same as to Church-Vnity for tho' Human Laws prescribe particular circumstances and Forms of Worship yet God's Laws oblige us to keep the Unity of the Church as much as to pay the King his due And that Man that paies his just debts by such a method as the Law of the Land declares to be unjust may as well acquit himself from knavery before God as that Man that chuses a way of public worship in opposition to the Church-Laws can acquit himself of Schism before God Nay separation from the Church is so much against the Law of God that shou'd Human Laws grant a Toleration and call no Man to an account for separation from the establish'd Church yet such a separation wou'd still be a Schism and a Sin against God For no Human Law can make that Lawful which God's Law has forbidden V. It remains that I speak of the Authority of Conscience or how far a Man is obliged to be guided by his Conscience in his actions that is how far we are obliged to act or not act when we are convinc'd in our judgment that the action is commanded or forbidden by God Now our judgment concerning what God has commanded or forbidden or left indifferent is either right or wrong If right we are said to have a right Conscience if wrong we have an erroneous Conscience There is also a doubting Conscience when we know not well how to make any judgment at all but of this I shall Treat in another place Now if our Conscience or judgment be right that is according to God's Law without doubt we are forever bound to act according to it nor can we sin in doing so whatever the consequence be But the great question is what we must do when our Conscience is erroneous and mistaken and to answer this I lay down three Rules which I think may give any Man satisfaction First Where a Man is mistaken in his judgment even in that case it is alwaies a sin to act against it Tho' we take a sin for a duty or a duty for a sin yet so long as we are thus persuaded it will be a great crime to act against this persuasion Because by so doing we act against the best light we have at present and therefore our will is as wicked as if it acted against a true light Nothing but Conscience can guide our actions and tho' an eroneous Conscience is a very bad and unsafe guide yet still 't is the only guide we have and if we may lawfully refuse to be guided by it in one instance we may with as much reason reject it's guidance in all What is a wilful sin or a sin against knowledge but acting otherwise than we were convinc'd to be our duty Is not that Man thought sincere that acts as he believes and that Man an hypocrite that acts otherwise whether his judgment be true or false He who being under a mistake acts contrary to his judgment wou'd certainly upon the same temptation act contrary to it were his judgment never so well inform'd And therefore his Will being as bad in the one case as in the other he is equally a sinner as to the Wilfulness of the Crime tho' indeed in other respects there will be a great difference in the cases Shou'd a Jew turn Christian or a Papist turn Protestant while yet they believe their former Religions to be true we shou'd all believe them to be great Villains and Hypocrites because they did it upon base principles and in contradiction to their judgments Nay we shou'd all think more favourably of a Protestant that being seduced by a cunning Papist did really out of Conscience go over to the Romanists than of such Persons All this put together shews that no Man can in any case act against his judgment but he is guilty of sin in so doing Secondly The mistake of a Man's judgment may be of such a nature that as it will be a sin to act against his judgment so it will likewise be a sin to act according to it For that action is good and a duty which God has commanded and that is a sin which he has forbidden 'T is not our Opinion but his Law that makes things good or evil And therefore we shall be forever obliged to do some actions and forbear others whatever our judgment be because we cannot alter the Nature of things For if the Moral goodness or badness of actions were to be measur'd by Mens opinions then duty and sin wou'd be the most uncertain things in the world and what is good or evil to day wou'd be the contrary to morrow as any Man's opinion alters But such consequences are intolerable and therefore tho' a Man do's follow his judgment yet he may be guilty of sin and be damn'd for it too if his judgment lead him to act against the Law of God But it must be observ'd that I do not say that every action according to a mistaken judgment is sinful but that a Man's mistake may be such that it will be a sin to act either against it or according to it For a Man may often mistake and yet not sin provided his mistakes do not lead him to a breach of God's Law For First if a Man believe a thing to be commanded by God which is neither commanded nor forbidden as if he think himself obliged to Pray seven or three times a day he is certainly mistaken because God has bound him up to neither And therefore since God has not commanded the contrary he may safely act according to his mistake nay so long as his mistake continues he is bound to do so Secondly If a Man believe a thing to be forbidden by God which is neither commanded nor forbidden as if he think that God has forbidden him to play at Cards in this case he may follow his false opinion without sin nay he is bound to follow it Because since God has not forbidden it 't is no sin to follow his mistaken Conscience but it is a sin to act against it But then in other cases when a Man thinks that to be sinful or indifferent which God commands or that to be Lawful or a Duty which God forbids here the mistake is dangerous and it is a sin to act against his judgment or
men He that minds those Things most on which the Efficacy of his Prayers for Christ's sake do's Depend will not Need new Phrases every time to raise his Affections and the more a Man is concern'd about the Necessary Preparation for the Sacrament the less afraid will he be of offending God by Kneeling at it For he will find that True Religion consists in the Constant Practice of Holiness Righteousness and Charity which make a Man really Better and more Like to God 3. If Men were but really Willing to receive satisfaction this alone wou'd half conquer their Scruples but when they are fond of them and nourish them and will neither hear nor read what is to be said on the other side there can be but Little Hopes of recovering them to a Right Apprehension of things Wou'd they come once to distrust their own Judgments to suppose that they may perhaps be all this while mistaken wou'd they calmly and patiently hear faithfully and impartially consider what is said or written against them as eagerly seek for satisfaction as Men do for the cure of any Disease they are subject unto wou'd they I say thus diligently use all fit means and helps for the removal of their Scruples before they troubled the Church with them it wou'd not prove so very difficult a Task to convince and settle such teachable Minds When they have any Fear or Suspicion about their worldly concerns they presently repair to those who are best skill'd and most able to resolve them and in their judgment and determination they commonly acquiesce and satisfy themselves Has any Man a Scruple about his Estate whether it be firmly setled or he has a true legal Title to it The way he takes for satisfaction is to advise with Lawyers the most eminent for Knowledge and Honesty in their Profession If they agree in the same Opinion this is the greatest assurance he can have that it is right and safe Thus is it with one that doubts whether such a custom or practice be for his Health the opinion of known and experienc'd Physicians is the only proper means to determine him in such a Case The reason is the same here When any private Christian is troubled and perplex'd with Fears and Scruples that concern his Duty or the Worship of God he ought in the first place to have recourse to the public Guides and Ministers of Religion who are appointed by God and are best fitted to direct and conduct him I say to come to them not only to dispute with them and pertly to oppose them but with modesty to propound their doubts and meekly to receive Instruction humbly begging of God to open their Understandings that they may see and embrace the truth taking great care that no evil affection love of a Party or carnal Interest influence or byass their Judgments I do not by this desire Men to pin their Faith upon the Priest's Sleeve but only diligently to Attend to their Reasons and Arguments and to give some due Regard to their Authority For 't is not so Absurd as some may Imagine for the Common People to take upon Trust from their Lawful Teachers what they are not Competent Judges of themselves But the difficulty is how a private Christian shall govern himself when the very Ministers of Religion disagree By what Rule shall he chuse his Guide I answer 1. If a Man be tolerably able to Judge for himself let him impartially hear both sides and think it no Shame to Change his Mind when he sees good Reason for it Cou'd we thus prevail with the People diligently to examine the Merits of the cause our Church wou'd every day gain more Ground amongst all wise Men. For we care not how much Knowledge and Understanding our People have so they be but humble and modest with it nor do we desire Men to become our Proselytes any further than we give them good Scripture and Reason for it 2. As for those who are not capable of Judging they had better Depend on those Ministers who are Regularly and by the Laws of the Land set over them than on any other Teachers that they can chuse for themselves I speak now of these present Controversies about Forms and Ceremonies which are above the sphere of Common People not of such things as Concern the Salvation of all Men which are plain and evident to the Meanest Capacities When therefore in such Cases about which we cannot easily satisfy our selves we follow the Advice of the Authoriz'd Guides if they chance to Mislead us we have something to say for our selves our error is more Excusable as being occasion'd by those whose Judgment God commands us to respect but when we chuse Instructors according to our own Fancies if we then prove to be in the wrong and are betray'd into sin we may Thank our own Wantonness for it and are more severely Accountable for such mistakes Thus if a Sick Person shou'd miscarry under a Licens'd Physician he has this contentment that he us'd the wisest means for Recovery but if he will hearken only to Quacks and then grow worse and worse he must charge his own Folly as the Cause of his Ruin 4. We shou'd throughly consider what is the true Notion of Lawful and how it differs from what is Necessary and from what is Sinful That is necessary or our Duty which God has expresly commanded that is sinful which God has forbidden that is lawful which God has not by any Law obliging us either commanded or forbidden For Where there is no Law saith the Apostle there is no Transgression Rom. 4.15 There can be no Transgression but either omitting what the Law commands or doing what the Law forbids For instance If any Man can shew where Kneeling at the Sacrament is forbidden in Scripture and Sitting is requir'd where Praying by a Form is forbidden and Extempore Prayers are injoin'd then indeed the Dispute wou'd soon be at an end but if neither the one nor other can be found as most certainly they cannot then Kneeling at the Sacrament and reading Prayers out of a Book must be reckon'd amongst things lawful And then there is no need of scrupling them because they may be done without Sin Nay where they are requir'd by our Superiours it is our Duty to submit to them because it is our Duty to obey them in all lawful things This way of arguing is very plain and convincing and cannot be evaded but by giving another notion of lawful And therefore it is commonly said that nothing is lawful especially in the Worship of God which God himself has not prescrib'd and appointed or that has been abus'd to evil Purposes but having fully confuted these two Mistakes in the Second and Eighth Chapters I shall pass them over here 5. I desire those who Scruple to comply with our Church to consider that there never was nor ever will be any public Constitution that will be every way unexceptionable The
by the passions of their Weak Brethren Whatever condescension may be due to the Weak yet 't was never intended they shou'd Govern the Wiser and who can Govern more absolutely than those whom none must displease Since then Scandalizing or giving offence do's not signify doing something which another takes ill I design to shew what is the true meaning of it in Scripture The Greek word which we translate Scandal or Offence signifies either a Trap or Snare or else more commonly something laid in the way of another which occasions his stumbling or falling by which he is bruis'd and hurt And so whatever it was that hindred Men from becoming Christ's Disciples or made them entertain unworthy thoughts of their profession or discourag'd them in it or tempted them to forsake it is call'd a Scandal or Offence It is sometimes rendred an occasion to fall Rom. 14.13 occasion of stumbling 1 Joh. 2.10 a stumbling block Rev. 2.14 or a thing that doth offend Matth. 13.41 in all which places there is the same original word Hence to Offend or Scandalize any one as 't is commonly us'd in the (a) See Matth. 17.27 and 26.31 Mark 4.17 and 6.3 Joh. 6.61 1. Cor. 1.23 New Testament is to do something which tends to fright him from Christianity to make him think hardly of it or is apt to make him Repent of his Conversion So that in the most general sense to Scandalize or Offend any one is to give occasion to his sin and consequently his Ruin and undoing and this I suppose will be granted by all that do not receive their opinions from the mere sound of words Hence I observe Four things 1. The better Men are the harder 't is to Scandalize them Those are not such Godly Persons as they wou'd be thought who are so ready at all turns to be Offended For how can they excel others in knowledge or goodness who are so easily drawn or tempted to sin 2. That Man that saies he shall be Scandaliz'd at what another Man do's speaks falsely For it is as much as to say that he shall be led into sin ignorantly whereas his saying so confutes his ignorance for if he knows it to be a sin he commits it wilfully 3. Since Offending or scandalizing signifies tempting to sin there can be no fear of Offending any one by Conforming to the Church because there is nothing us'd in it but what may be comply'd with without sin For the Man that fears giving Offence to the Weak is suppos'd to be satisfy'd himself that Conformity is lawful and how then shou'd he fear that his example will tempt others to sin in doing an innocent action If it be said that tho' what I do is lawful yet it may give occasion to others to do something else that is unlawful and so I may become truly guilty of giving Offence I answer that we are accountable only for the Natural tendencies of our actions and not for such consequences as wicked or silly Men may draw from them for at that rate a Man cou'd not speak or do any thing without the guilt of giving Scandal If it be said that tho' I am satisfy'd my self yet I may by my example tempt others that are not satisfy'd or that think Conformity to be sinful to follow me with a doubting or gainsaying Conscience I answer 1. that 't is as unlawful to go to separate Meetings against one's Conscience as to Conform against one's Conscience and the Man ought to fear lest he draw some to separate Meetings against their Conscience as well as he fears the drawing of others to Church against their Conscience The influence of his example is the same in both instances and the danger of Scandal is equal and therefore his own persuasion must determine his practice 2. A Man that is satisfy'd himself ought to endeavour to satisfy others especially those whom he formerly persuaded to separation by his example and when he has done thus he has done what lies in his power to prevent the ill effect and shall not be farther answerable for the consequences of what he doth 4. Since Scandalizing is leading into sin we may Scandalize others as soon by complying with them as by thwarting their humour St. Paul who circumcis'd Timothy Acts 16.3 in favour of the Weak Jews lest they shou'd have forsaken the Faith refus'd to circumcise Titus Gal. 2.3 tho' he angred the Jews by it lest they shou'd think the Jewish Law still in force And this he did because the condition of the Persons was different If he had pleas'd them he had truly Scandaliz'd them by hardening them in their folly and ignorance Mr. Baxter saies in his Cure of Church-Divisions Many a time I have the rather gone to the Common-Prayers of the public Assemblies for fear of being a Scandal to those same men that call'd the going to them a Scandal that is for fear of hardening them in a sinful Separation and Error Because I knew that was not Scandal which they call'd Scandal that is displeasing them and crossing their Opinions but hardening them in an Error or other Sin is true Scandalizing Vnderstand this or you will displease God under pretence of avoiding Scandal p. 135. This surely ought to be well consider'd of 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 wou'd fain displease neither side but indeed give real Offence to both From all this I think it is very plain that he who is satisfy'd in his own mind of the lawfulness of Conformity but is afraid of giving Offence by it if he be true to his Principle ought to hasten the faster to his Parish-Church that he may not offend those very Dissenters of whom he wou'd seem to be so tender III. In the last place I am to inquire how far and in what instances we are bound to consider the Weakness of our Brethren In answer to this I shall now suppose notwithstanding all I have already said that the Dissenters are truly weak Persons and that there may be some danger of their being thro' 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 Conformity ought not to forbear it for fear of giving such Offence to his Weak Brethren For First Nothing that is sinful may be done to avoid others being Scandaliz'd We must not do evil that good may come Rom. 3.8 We must not commit the least sin our selves to prevent the greatest sin in another The very best things may be perverted and Christ himself is said to be set for the fall of many Luke 2.24 but this do's not cancel our obligations to obey God's Laws If offence be taken at my doing any duty those only that are offended are chargeable with it Since those who fear giving Offence do themselves think Conformity
with respect to the whole as the Church is the House of God 1 Pet. 2.5 and every Christian is a Stone of it and therefore ought to study what may be for the Edification of the whole And how is that but by promoting Love Peace and Order and taking care to preserve it For so we (e) 1 Cor. 14.26 2 Cor. 10.8 1 Tim. 1.4 Rom. 14.19 1 Thess 5.11 Eph. 4.12 16. find Peace and Edifying Comfort and Edification Union and Edification join'd together as the one promotes the other And therefore as the good and Edification of the Church is to be always in our Eye so 't is the Rule by which we ought to act in all things lawful and to that end we shou'd comply with its customs observe its directions and obey its orders without reluctancy and opposition If any Man seem or have a mind to be contentious we have no such custom neither the Churches of God 1 Cor. 11.16 Whatever might be urg'd the Apostle concludes we have no such Custom c. The Peace of the Church is to a peaceable mind sufficient to put an end to all disputes about it and since the Peace of the Church depends upon the observation of its customs that is infinitely to be preferr'd before scrupulosity and niceness or a meer inclination to a contrary practice There must be somewhat establish'd and the very change of a custom tho' it may happen to profit yet doth disturb by its Novelty saies St. Austin Epist 118. Infirmity in a Church is better than confusion and in things which neither we nor the worship are the worse for but the Church the better for observing Peace and Order are to be preferr'd far before niceties and certainly neither we nor the service of God can be the worse for what God has concluded nothing in In a word what St. Austin and his Mother receiv'd from St. Ambrose is worthy to be recommended to all That in all things not contrary to Truth and good Manners it becomes a good and prudent Christian to practise according to the custom of the Church where he comes if he will not be a scandal to them nor have them to be a scandal to him Epist 118 86. And if the custom and practice of a Church must oblige a good Man much more ought it so to do when 't is Establish'd by Law and back'd by Authority For then to stand in opposition is not only an Offence but an Affront 't is to contend whether we or our Superiours shall Govern and what can be the issue of such a temper but distraction 'T is pleaded that there shou'd be a Liberty left to Christians in things undetermin'd in Scripture but there are things which they must agree in or else there can be nothing but confusion For instance what Order can there be if Superiours may not determine whether Prayers shall be long or short and the like To conclude when the Scripture do's neither require nor forbid an action we ought to obey the Orders of the Church in the performance or omission of it But 't is said That if we be restrain'd in the use of indifferent things we are also restrain'd in our Christian Liberty which the Apostle exhorts us to stand fast in Gal. 5.1 Now to this I answer 1. This is no argument to those that say there is nothing indifferent in the worship of God for then there is no matter of Christian Liberty in it 2. A restraint of our Liberty or receding from it is of it self no violation of it The most scrupulous Persons plead that the strong ought to bear with the weak and give them no offence by indulging that Liberty which others are afraid to take and why I pray is a Man's Liberty more damaged when restrain'd by Superiours than when 't is restrain'd by another's Conscience If it be said that the Superiour's command restrains it perpetually I answer that the case is still the same for the Apostle who knew his own Liberty supposes that it wou'd not be damnify'd tho' it were restrain'd for his whole life For saies he if Meat make my Brother to offend I will eat no Flesh while the World standeth 1 Cor. 8.13 and this he wou'd not have said had he not thought it consistent with standing fast in that Liberty c. 3. Christian Liberty is indeed nothing else but freedom from the restraints which the Jewish Law laid upon men This is that Liberty which we are exhorted to stand fast in and I think that in obeying the orders of our Church there is no danger of Judaism But we must note that Christian Liberty consists not in our being freed from the act of observing the Jewish Law but in being freed from the necessity of observing it For the Apostles and first Christians did observe it for some time upon prudential considerations but they did so not out of necessity but in condescension to their weak Converts And if they cou'd observe some Judaical Rites without infringing their Christian Liberty certainly we may safely use a few indifferent Ceremonies From what has been said it plainly appears that the use of indifferent things is no objection against living in Communion with our Establish'd Church and this is enough to satisfy those Persons who upon no other account than that of a few harmless impositions are guilty of separation from her But because they have some particular objections against some particular things impos'd by her therefore I shall not satisfy my self with proving the lawfulness of using indifferent things in general but endeavour to satisfy all their scruples which relate to single instances as I shall have occasion to treat of them in the following Chapters CHAP. III. Of the Lawfulness and Expediency of Forms of Prayer THE next objection against our Communion is the use of Forms of Prayer This the Dissenters judge to be unlawful or at least not expedient and they think it a sufficient excuse for their separation from us I shall therefore in this Chapter endeavour to rectify their mistakes 1. By shewing that both Scripture and Antiquity do warrant Forms of Prayer 2. By answering their objections against Forms of Prayer And 3. by proving that the imposition of Forms of Prayer may be lawfully comply'd with First then I shall shew that both Scripture and Antiquity do warrant Forms of Prayer The Dissenters indeed require us to produce some positive command of Scripture for the use of Forms of Prayer but this is needless because I have shewn in the foregoing Chapter that things not commanded may be lawfully us'd in Divine worship However for their full satisfaction I shall endeavour to prove these Two things 1. That some Forms of Prayer are commanded in Holy Scripture 2. That tho' no Forms were commanded yet Forms are as Lawful as extempore Prayers I. Then some Forms of Prayer are commanded in Holy Scripture I do not say that God's Word commands us to use none but Forms
themselves do grant because there is no such prohibition to be found in the New Testament but then they pretend that it was Christ's intention that none but grown persons shou'd be Baptiz'd because the Gospel requires that persons to be Baptiz'd shou'd 1. be Taught Matth. 28.29 2. Believe Mark 16.16 3. Repent Acts 2.38 But those and the like Texts do no more prove that none but grown persons ought to be Baptiz'd than the Apostle's words 2 Thess 3.10 do prove that none but grown persons ought to eat For he requires that if any wou'd not work neither shou'd he eat now none but grown persons can work and therefore by this way of arguing none but grown persons ought to eat Again suppose there were a Plague in any Country and God shou'd miraculously call 11 or 12 Men and give them a Meditine against this Plague and say Go into such a Country and call the People of it together and Teach them the Vertues of this Medicine and assure them that he that believeth and taketh it from you shall live but he that believeth not shall die Now since Children are capable of the Medicine tho' they are ignorant of the Benefits of it wou'd any Man conclude that it was God's intention that none but grown persons shou'd receive it because they only cou'd be call'd together and be taught the Vertues of it and believe or disbelieve them that brought it No certainly Wherefore seeing Children as I have prov'd are capable of the Benefits of Baptism and the Apostles who were sent to Baptize all Nations knew them to be capable of it and to have receiv'd both Circumcision and Baptism in the Jewish Church how shou'd it be thought but that it was Christ's intention that Children as well as grown persons shou'd be Baptiz'd Shou'd God in the daies of David have order'd some Prophets to go and Preach the Law to every Creature saying He that believeth and is Circumcis'd and Baptiz'd shall be sav'd but he that believeth not shall be damn'd wou'd those Prophets have Circumcis'd and Baptiz'd only grown persons contrary to the practice of the Jewish Church Or if in a short History of their Mission we shou'd have read that they Circumcis'd and Baptiz'd as many Proselytes as gladly receiv'd their word wou'd this have prov'd that they did not also Circumcise and Baptize the Infants of those believing Proselytes according to the Laws and Usages of their Mother-Church Or shou'd God bid 12 Men of a Church that had always practis'd Infant-Baptism go and Preach the Gospel in the Indies saying He that believeth and is Baptiz'd shall be sav'd wou'd those Men that were bred up to the practice of Infant-Baptism think it was God's intention that Baptism shou'd be deny'd to Infants No certainly and therefore by parity of Reason the Apostles cou'd not so understand their Commission as to exclude Infants from Baptism Now since our Saviour has not either expresly or otherwise excluded Infants from Baptism certainly his Command to Baptize all Nations do's comprehend Infants as well as Men. For the Apostles liv'd under a dispensation where Infants were initiated both by Circumcision and Baptism into the Church and unless they had been instructed to the contrary they must naturally understand their Commission of Baptizing to have extended unto Infants as well as actual Believers Our Adversaries indeed put the greatest stress upon these words of our Saviour Mark 16.16 He that believeth and is Baptiz'd shall be sav'd but if they wou'd well consider the next words they wou'd find that Infants are not at all concern'd in them because it follows but he that believeth not shall be damn'd The same want of Faith which here excludes from Baptism excludes also from Salvation and therefore it cannot be understood of Infants unless they will say that the same incapacity of believing which excludes them from Baptism excludes them from Salvation too Wherefore 't is plain that the believing or not believing in that Text is only to be understood of such as are in a capacity of hearing and believing the Gospel that is of grown persons just as the words John 3.36 He that believeth on the Son of God hath Everlasting Life and he that believeth not shall not see Life but the Wrath of God abideth on him But they urge also that Baptism is unprofitable for Infants because putting away the filth of the Flesh which is all that Infants are capable of signifies nothing but only the answer of a good Conscience towards God of which say they Infants are wholly uncapable To this I answer that another Apostle tells us that external Circumcision which is all that infants are capable of profiteth nothing without keeping the Law which Infants cou'd not keep but that the inward Circumcision of the Heart and in the Spirit was the true Circumcision and yet Infants are uncapable of it So that their way of arguing proves nothing because it stretches the words of the Apostles beyond their just meaning which was to let both Jews and Christians know not that their Infants were unprofitably Circumcis'd or Baptiz'd but that there was no resting in external Circumcision or Baptism But farther had not the Church been alwaies in possession of this practice or cou'd any time be shew'd on this side the Apostles when it began nay cou'd it be prov'd that any one Church in the World did not Baptize Infants or that any considerable number of Men otherwise Orthodox did decline the Baptizing of them upon the same principles that these Men do now then I shou'd suspect that their arguments are better than they really are and that Infant-Baptism might possibly be a deviation from the Rule of Christ But since it is so Universal and Ancient a practice that there never was any Church Ancient or Modern which did not practise it it can be nothing less than an Apostolical practice and tradition If it be said that False Apostles and False Teachers brought in Infant-Baptism in the very first Ages I wou'd fain know how it came to pass that the very Companions and Contemporaries of the Apostles and the Ancient Saints and Martyrs who wrote against other Heresies pass'd it over in silence tho' we are sure from Irenaeus and Tertullian that it was (a) See Suicerus in the words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Hammond on Matth. 19.28 John 3.5 Selden De Jure lib. 2. c. 4. Vossius De Baptismo p. 181. practis'd in those early times 'T is impossible that they shou'd all consent in such a dangerous Errour or that they shou'd all peaceably and tamely submit to it without opposition or that such an alteration shou'd be made without observation no body can tell how or when Certainly those places of the New Testament which require a profession of Faith and Repentance in grown Persons before Baptism were understood by the ancient Fathers and yet they never concluded from thence that Infants ought not
in Prayer Acts 2.42 5. Church-Membership is in order to the Edification and Salvation of Mens Souls and this cannot be attain'd without being admitted to all the Acts and Offices of Church-Communion For it is of mighty advantage to us to hear God's Word duely Preach'd to have our prayers join'd with those of other Christians and our grace strengthen'd in the Holy Communion and these things cannot be had but in Church-Communion Nay our improvement in holiness is more to be ascrib'd to the operations of the Spirit than to the External Administrations and therefore (d) Acts 2.47 Eph. 5.23 and 4.4 since God Promises his Spirit to Believers only as they are Members of of his Church and no otherwise than by the use and Ministry of his Word and Sacraments since his ordinary method of saving Men is by adding them to the Church since Chriâ—â— suffer'd for us as incorporated into a Church and the operations of the Spirit are confin'd to the Church we see the necessity of holding actual communion with the Church in order to sanctification and saâ—vation But it may â—e said that those who have only the Form and not the power of Godliness are guilty of the Body and Blood of Christ and eat and drink their own damnation when they receive the Sacrament 1 Cor. 11.27 29. and such men cannot have a right to that in doing which they sin so heinousâ—y Now to this I answer 1. that in a strict sense the very best men are unworthy receivers but 2. those Members that we have asserted to have a right to the External privileges of Christ's Church are not guilty of that unworthiness which the Apostle speaks of For we do not plead for the right of such open and scandalous sinners whom St. Paul charges with Schism and Divisions pride and contempt of their Brethren sensuality and drunkenness Such swine as these ought not indeed to come to the Holy Table of our Lord because they have forfeited their right to it and ought by the censures of the Church to be excluded If it be said that those receivers who are destitute of saving grace tho' they are free from scandalous sins are yet in an unconveâ—ted condition and that this Sacrament is not a converting but confirming Ordinance I answer that taking conversion for turning Men to the profession of Christianity ' tâ—s true that none but converted or Baptiz'd Persons must receive the Sacrament but if we take conversion for turning those who are already Baptiz'd to a serious practice of holiness then this is a converting ordinance For what more powerful motives to holiness can be found than what the Sacrament represents to us wherein the great love of God in Christ and our Saviour's sufferings and God's hatred of sin and the dismal consequences of it are so lively set forth Thirdly I proceed to shew that some corrupt Members remaining in the Church is no just cause of Separation from her And 1. From the Example of the Jews What sins cou'd be greater than those of Eli's Sons who arriv'd to such impudence in sinning that they lay with the Women before the door of the Tabernacle Yet did not Elkanah and Hannah refrain to come up to Shilo and to join with them in public worship Nay they are said to transgress who refus'd to come tho' they refus'd out of abhorrence of the Wickedness of those Men 1 Sam. 2.17 24. In Ahab's time when almost all Israel were Idolaters and halted betwixt God and Baal yet then did the Prophet Elijah Summon all Israel to appear on Mount Carmel and hold a Religious Communion with them in Preaching and Praying and offering a miraculous Sacrifice Neither did the Seven Thousand that had kept themselves upright and not bow'd their Knee to Baal absent themselves because of the Idolatry of the rest but they all came and join'd in that public Worship perform'd by the Prophet 1 Kings 18.39 and 19.18 In the Old Testament when both Prince and Priests and People were very much deprav'd and debauch'd in their Manners we do not find that the Prophets at any time exhorted the faithful and sincere to separate or that they themselves set up any separate Meetings but continu'd in Communion with the Church Preaching to them and exhorting them to Repentance 2. From the Example of Christians Many Members of the Churches of Corinth and Galatia and the 7 Churches in Asia were grown very scandalous yet we do not read that good Men Separated from the Church or that the Apostles commanded them so to do 3. From our Saviour's own Example who did not separate from the Jewish Church tho' the Scribes and Pharisees who rul'd in Ecclesiastical Matters at that time had perverted the Law corrupted the Worship of God were blind guides and hypocrites devoured widows houses and had only a form of Godliness Matth. 15.6 7 8. How careful was he both by his Example and Precept to forbid and discountenance a separation upon that account They sit in Moses 's Seat saies he all therefore whatsoever they bid you observe that observe and do Matth. 23.2 3. 4. From the Apostle's express command to hold Communion with the Church of Corinth notwithstanding the many and great immoralities that were amongst the Members of it (e) 1 Cor. 1.12 13. and 3.3 and 5.1 and 11.18 There were Schisms and Contentions amongst them strife and envyings fornication and incest eating at the Idols Table and coming not so soberly as became them to the Table of our Lord yet do's the Apostle not only not command them to separate but approve their meeting together and exhort them to continue it But (f) 1 Cor. 11.28 let a Man examine himself and so let him eat of that Bread and drink of that Cup. In these words the Apostle plainly solves the Case I am discoursing on and shews what private Christians in whose power it is not judicially to correct Vice are to do when they see so many vicious Members intruding to the blessed Sacrament viz. not to abstain from it but by preparation and examination of themselves to take care that they be not of their number If to separate had been the way the Apostle wou'd then have manag'd his Discourse after this manner There are many Schisms and strises in the Church there is an incestuous Person not cast out many proud contemners of their Brethren Men of strange Opinions of untam'd Appetites and unbridl'd Passions and therefore I advise you not to come amongst them nor to partake of the Holy Sacrament with them lest you be infected with their Sores and partake of their Judgments But by advising Men to examine themselves and then to come he plainly intimates that 't was their Duty to continue in the Communion of the Church notwithstanding these as if he had said I do not mention the foul Enormities of some that come to this holy Table to discourage you from coming lest you shou'd be polluted by their
whether they may lawfully separate from us As to the First of these sorts tho' in a single doubt it is more safe to chuse that side on which a Man has no doubt than that on which he doubts yet this Rule holds only in such cases where a Man may forbear the action without danger of sinning tho' he cannot do it without danger of sinning But in our case 't is evident that as there may be sinning in Conforming so there is certainly danger of sinning in not Conforming Nor is it more safe to separate in case of a single doubt than of a double one For the Man who is satisfy'd in his mind that he may lawfully cut himself off from the Communion of the Church and live in constant disobedience to his Superiours which things are directly contrary to God's Laws must needs be grosly and criminally ignorant of his duty and therefore his being satisfy'd about such sins will not excuse him because he was able and it was his duty to know better Nay further tho' God had left it indifferent whether we keep the Unity of the Church and obey our Superiours or no tho' the case were really that of a single doubt tho' there was no danger in forbearing these things but the only danger was in doing them yet I say it is more reasonable to Conform than to Separate notwithstanding For tho' in a single doubt a Man is to chuse that side on which he has no doubt rather than that on which he doubts yet this Rule as I said before do's not hold unless all other considerations be equal And therefore if a great good may be obtain'd or a great evil avoided by acting on the doubtful side that consideration ought to turn the Ballance and over-rule the doubt as I shew'd in the Case of going to Law And certainly if weighty considerations ought to over-ballance a single doubt in any case then the considerations of the Peace of the Kingdom the Security of Religion and those many Public and Private Mischiefs that attend Separation ought to prevail in this of ours and oblige Men to Conform And I wish this were well consider'd by our doubting Dissenters As to the Second sort who doubt both of the lawfulness of Conforming and also of the lawfulness of separating from us I say First if the probabilities appear pretty equal on both sides then it is their duty to obey Authority as I prov'd in the Third general Head of this Discourse Secondly if they think it more probable that they ought not to Conform than that they ought then tho' the Authority of Superiours alone have not weight enough to turn the Ballance yet the consideration of the great sin and the more dreadful consequences of separation are sufficient and ought to oblige them to Conform as appears from the Third prop. about a double doubt p. 256 257. Now let any indifferent Man judge between us and our Dissenters 'T is plain that the things they doubt of are not directly forbidden by God And if they are forbidden by consequences those consequences are so obscure that tho' such usages have ever been in the Christian Church yet they were never condemn'd as sinful till our daies And even now these consequences are not discover'd by our superiours no not by as great and good Divines of all persuasions as any in the World Nay the far greater number and those as Pious and Able as any do plainly own our injunctions to be innocent at least if not Apostolical So that if they are all mistaken it can at most be but a sin of ignorance in an ordinary person where so many of the best guides are mistaken if he shou'd transgress But now on the other hand if our Governours be in the right and our Communion lawful then how great a sin are they guilty of in breaking the Laws of Church-Vnity which are as plain as any in the Bible and that in such instances where the whole Catholic Church of Old and the greatest and best part of the present Church are of a different persuasion from them The consequences also of their separation are most dreadful for by it they deprive themselves of the ordinary means of Salvation and keep up those discords and animosities in the Church which have torn the bowels of it and caused Atheism and Prophaness to overspread it they affront their Governours give scandal to all peaceable persons and offer a very fair pretence to factious Men to practise against the best of Goverments So they take the Most effectual course to ruin the best Church in the World and with it the reform'd Religion in this Kingdom And now let any Man judge whether any doubt about the lawfulness of our Communion and all the probabilities of the doubt have weight enough to Ballance against such a sin and such consequences Certainly an unconcern'd Person will pronounce that in such a case a Man is bound to Conform rather than to Separate and that is all I contend for CHAP. XIII The pretence of a Scrupulous Conscience Answer'd I Proceed now to the pretence of a Scrupulous Conscience in Treating of which I shall 1. Shew what I mean by it 2. Observe some few things concerning it 3. Offer some plain Rules and Means by which we may best get rid of it First then Conscience is a Man's judgment concerning the Goodness or Evil or his Actions and a Scrupulous Conscience is a Scrupulous judgment concerning things in their own nature indifferent and consists either 1. in strictly tying up our selves to some things which God has no where commanded as the Pharisees made great Conscience of washing before meat c. and observ'd such usages as Religiously as the most indisputable commands of God or 2. in a conscientious abstaining from some things which are no waies unlawful doubting and fearing where no fear is thinking that God is as much offended by our eating some kind of Meats or wearing some Garments as by Adultery or Murder and being more precise about little matters than other Good Christians are or our selves ought to be Secondly Concerning this Scrupulous Conscience we may observe 1. that it is a sickly temper of Mind and a state of Infirmity arising from a Want of right understanding our Religion from Timerousness Melancholy and Prejudice Now this is no more a Vertue or commendable Quality in us than 't is to be sickly and often indispos'd A good Conscience is firm and steady well setled and resolv'd but such needless scruples are at the best a sign of an ungovern'd fancy and a weak judgment just as the Niceness and Squeamishness of a Man's stomach that distasts Wholsom Food is a symptom of an unsound and unhealthy Body 2. 'T is often a sign of Hypocrisy as 't was in the Scribes and Pharisees who strain'd at a Gnat and swallow'd a Camel and hoped to make amends for their gross Transgressions in other cases of far greater Weight and Moment