that the Publick or some private Person shall Suffer Damage or Inconvenience by our not Observing it Or Secondly Though the Law as to the matter of it be never so Trifling nay though perhaps all things considered it be an inconvenient Law yet if the Manner of our not Obeying it be such as gives Offence to our Superiours or to any others that is either Argues a Contempt of Authority or sets an ill Example before our fellow Subjects I say in either of these Cases the Transgression of a Humane Law renders a Man guilty of a Fault as well as Obnoxious to the Penalty of that Law But out of these two Cases I must consess I do not see how a purely Humane Law doth Oblige the Conscience or how the Transgression of it doth make a Man guilty of Sin before God For it is certain if we secure these two Points that is to say the good of the Publick and of private Persons and wâ—th all the sacredness and respect which is due to Authority which is likewise in Order to the Publick good We Answer all the Ends for which the Power of making Laws or laying Commands upon Inferiours was Committed by God to Mankind So that though it be true that Humane Laws do Oblige the Conscience yet it is also true that a great many Cases may and do happen in which a Man may Act contrary to a purely Humane Law and yet not be a Sinner before God Always supposing as I said there be no Contempt or Refractoryness expressed towards the Governours Nor no Scandal or ill Example given to others by the Action For if there be either of these in the Case I dare not acquit the Man from being a Transgressour of Gods Law in the instance wherein he Transgresseth the Laws of Men. For this is that which we insist upon that the Authority of our Governours ought to be held and esteemed very sacred both because the Laws of God and the Publick good require it should be so And herefore wherever they do peremptorily lay their Commands upon us we are bound in Conscience so far to comply as not to contest the matter with them nor to seem to do it And though their Commands as to the matter of them be never so slight nay though they should prove really inconvenient either to our selves or the Publick Yet if they stand upon them if they persist in requiring our Obedience to them we must yield we must Obey always supposing they be not against Gods Laws For we are at no hand either to affront their Authority our selves or to encourage others by our Example to do it For to do either of these things is a greater Evil to the Publtck than our Obedience to an inconvenient Law can easily be IV. And now it is time for us to apply what hath been said in General concerning the Rule of Conscience and the Obligation of Humane Laws to the particular Matter here before us that is the business of Church Communion The Obligation of Conscience to which in such manner as the Laws have appointed is the Fourth general Head we are to consider This point of the Obligation to Communion with the Church as by Law Established hath been largely handled by several Learned Men of our Church and particularly it is the Argument of one of those Discourses which have lately been writ for the sake of our Dissenters Thither therefore I refer the Reader for full Satisfaction about this Matter being only just to touch upon it here as one of the Principles we take for granted and shall proceed upon in the following Discourse And here the Proposition we lay down is this That it is every Mans Duty and consequently every Man is bound in Conscience to joyn in Communion with that Church which is Established by Law in the place where he lives so long as that Church is a true sound part of the Catholick Church and there is nothing imposed or required as a Condition of Communicating with it that is Repugnant to the Laws of God or the Appointments of Jesus Christ This Proposition is Evident not only because it Necessarily follows from the foregoing Principle which was that every Man is bound in Conscience to Obey the Laws of Men that are not contrary to the Laws of God and therefore consequently a Man is bound to Obey in Ecclesiastical matters as well as Civil unless it can be shew'd that Christ hath forbid all Humane Authority whether Ecclesiastical or Civil to make any Laws or Orders about Religion which I believe never was or can be shew'd But it is Evident upon another Account which I desire may be considered We are all really bound by the Laws of Jesus Christ and the Nature of his Religion to preserve as much as in uslyes the Vnity of the Church Which Vnity doth consist not only in professing the same Faith but joyning together with our Brethren under Common Governours in the same Religious Communion of Worship and Sacraments And therefore whoever breaks this Vnity of the Church by withdrawing his Obedience from those Church Governours which God hath set over him in the place where he Lives and Separating from the Established Religious Assemblies of Christians under those Governours doth really transgress the Laws of Jesus Christ and is Guilty of that Sin of Schism which is so very much cautioned against and so highly Condemned in the Scriptures of the New Testament Unless in the mean time it doth appear to the Man who thus withdraws and Separates that there is something required of him in those Assemblies and by those Governours and that as a Term and Condition of holding Communion with them which he cannot Submit to without Sin And this Point I do heartily wish was well considered by our dissenting Brethren They do seem often to look upon this business of coming to Church and joyning with us in Prayers and Sacraments no otherwise to bind their Conscience than other purely Humane Laws They think they owe no Obedience to the Laws in these matters different from that which they yield to any common Act of Parliament And therefore no wonder they often make so slight a business of them But this is a great mistake there is much more in these things than this comes to The withdrawing our Communion from the Church carrys a far greater guilt in it than the Violating any Law that is purely Humane For though we do readily grant that all the Circumstances of Publick Worship enjoyned in the Church as for Instance the Times the Gestures the Forms of Prayer the Methods of Reading the Scripture and Administring the Sacraments as also the Habits of the Ministers that are to Officiate be all of Humane Institution and may be altered and varyed at the discretion of our Governours Yet the Publick Worship it self under Publick Lawful Governours is of Divine Appointment and no Man can Renounce it without Sinning against Jesus Christ as well as Offending against
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
is not bound on either side of the Action but he may either do it or forbear it with a safe Conscience So that if there be any Obligation at all upon a man to Act thus rather than otherwise in a Doubtful Case that Obligation must arise upon one of these two Accounts viz. Either there is some Law of God concerning a Doubting Conscience which hath tied a man up to such precise measures of Acting Or at least a man hath a Perswasion that there is some such Law of God Now I grant That in both these Cases there doth a direct Obligation pass upon the mans Conscience But then it is to be remembred that this Obligation doth not arise from the mans being Doubtful in his Conscience but from his being resolved in his Conscience That is to say if there be really any such Law of God it is the Obligation of a Right Conscience Or if there be not but the man only judges that there is it is then the Obligation of an Erroneous Conscience But as for the Obligation of a Doubting Conscience there is no such thing The great therefore or indeed the only Point that is to be inquired into in order to the Resolution of our present Question is this Whether there be any Law of God which doth determine our Actions one way or other in the Case of a Doubt and what that Law is Now in answer to this Inquiry I say That it doth not appear that there is any express Law of God in Holy Scripture that hath laid any Obligation upon us as to this particular of a Doubting Conscience either one way or other The only Texts that I know of which are thought to make for this purpose are the two passages in the 14th of the Romans which I have before largely given an account of viz. That in the 5th Verse Let every man be fully perswaded in his own mind And that other in the last Verse He that doubteth is damned if he eat because he eateth not of Faith But now I think I have made it plain by several Arguments that these Texts do not at all concern our present Case of a Doubting Conscience properly so called So that there being no express Particular Law of God in Scripture about acting with a Doubting Conscience we seem to be left as to that Affair to the General Laws of God as they are declared whether by Nature or Scripture Now the most that any Man can be Obliged to by the General Laws of God whether Natural or Revealed in the Case of a Doubt is only these two things First to use his Endeavour to get himself as well instructed in his Duty as his Circumstances and Opportunities will allow him And Secondly where he is at a loss for Information in that Case to Act as reasonably as he can I do not say that a Man in every Doubtful Case that happens is strictly obliged to thus much But I say it is impossible he should be obliged to more Because indeed more than this he cannot do and no man can be obliged to more than is in his Power Where-ever therefore a Man in a Doubtful Case takes care to observe these two things he Acts with a safe Conscience however he may act Doubtingly in that Case Thus far I think we are clear beyond Exception But it may be some will not be satisfied with this Account of our Point but will be putting a farther Question We have before laid down several Rules about a Mans Acting in a Doubtful Case the sum of all which comes to no more than what we have now said viz. That in every doubtful Case a man is to act as reasonably as he can The Question now is Whether a man is strictly bound in Conscience always to follow this Rule Or which is to the same effect Whether a man in a matter concerning which he hath only a pure Doubt may not without sin indifferently chuse either side of the Action though yet perhaps one side doth appear to him more reasonable or more safe than the other This Question is indeed more curious than useful But however since it properly falls under the Argument we are now treating of and tends somewhat to the clearing of it I shall venture to say something to it Only I declare before-hand that I mean not in what I shall say to assert any thing Dogmatically but only to propose in order to further Examination And withal that whether that which we say be true or false it doth not at all affect the Merits of the main Cause we have undertaken That now which I have to say to this Question is this That though it be eternally fit and natural and conducing to a mans Happiness both in this World and the other that he should in all Cases and especially in Doubtful Cases govern his Actions by the best Reason that he hath and certainly the Wiser and the Better any man is the more steadily will he pursue this Rule Yet on the other hand I dare not say that a man is strictly bound in Conscience so to do so as that he is properly guilty of sin if he do not My Reason is this Because there is no Law of God which doth oblige us in all Cases to do that which is Best And if we be not bound to do always that which is Best we are not bound to do always that which is most Reasonable for certainly that which is Best is always most Reasonable And if we be not bound to do that which is most Reasonable much less are we bound to do that which is Safest because that which is Safest is not always either Best or most Reasonable And if there be no Law of God that doth oblige us to any of these things then it is certain we do not sin if we Act otherwise For where there is no Law there is no Transgression Now That the first of these Principles is true we have as good Proof as can be desired viz. the Authority of St. Paul who hath in the 7th of the first of the Corinthians thus determined And if that be true the other two must needs be so likewise because they follow from it by unavoidable Consequence Taking now this for granted I ask what Law doth a man Transgress that in a purely Doubtful Case chuseth either side indifferently without respect to what is Safest or most Reasonable Always supposing that the side he chuseth be not in it self evil and forbidden by God I say according to these Principles he transgresseth no Law at all and consequently cannot properly be said to sin at all If the man be at all guilty it is upon one of these accounts viz. either because he Acteth against the dictate of his Conscience or because he Acteth against the Law of God in preferring that which is less reasonable and safe before that which is more so Now Upon the former account he is not at all guilty for his
we be said to give offence to others in either of these sences by conforming to the Institutions and Rites of the Church of England 1. Not in the first sence for that can onely be in one or both of these two cases either first by doing that which is essentially and in its own nature evil and a sin Or secondly by doing that which is directly a temptation and a snare to induce another to do that which is a sin Now if it can be shewn that complying with the Rites and Service of the Church of England is giving offence in either of these sences then I here profess I will my self immediately turn their Proselyte and renounce Conformity and protest against it for ever 1. It hath scarce ever yet been so much as intimated that the Church of England requires any thing as a condition of Communion with her that is essentially evil None of our adversaries that I know of have yet dared to charge her Doctrine with falshood or her Discipline with any thing that is in it self evil And when any shall adventure to do it I doubt not but he will find enough to enter the lists with him Even our bitterest Enemies of the Romish Communion have dared to charge us no further in either of these but onely that we are defective in both and reject many things which the Church of Christ as they pretend hath believed and practised in the ancient and primitive ages of it They would rather chuse to call us Schismaticks than Hereticks or to prove us Hereticks not because we believe or teach any things for necessary Doctrines which are false but rather because we do not teach or believe all things that are Christian and true Neither do they charge our Liturgy and Service or Form of Worship with any thing that is materially evil no nor redundant but onely deficient in many Usages and Rites which they pretend to be Apostolical And if our own Brethren must be more spightful and bitter against us than our worst Adversaries let them look to it that even they become not their accusers at the great day But yet thanks be to God they have not adventured to do this and will be unsuccessful enough when they do it and therefore themselves free us from giving any offence in our Conformity in this sence of giving offence i. e. doing any thing which is formally a Sin our selves and thereby inducing others into the same evil by joyning with us 2. Neither secondly do I see any one sin that Conformity is directly introductive of or a temptation unto and I will believe it will puzzle the most curious and inquisitive to find out any such I have so much charity for my dear Mother the Church and so much duty I thank God yet left in me as to dare to justifie her from this imputation I am sure she intends no sin in what she doth nor knowns of any evil that her Communion will betray any man into All that she designs in her Doctrine is to teach the truth as it is in Jesus and to keep close to that Symbol of Faith which was once delivered unto the Saints And what she intends and aims at in her Liturgie and Discipline is by the one to keep men from innovating and corrupting that Faith or debauching it in their manners and deteining it in unrighteousness And by the other to direct them to worship God in such a way as is suitable to his own nature and to the Principles of such a holy Religion and thereby conciliate that grace that may enable them to live so as the Worship of such a God and the Belief of such a Religion require and oblige them to do I must confess in one thing the Church of England may be an occasion of a great deal of sin in the world but it is such as will as little advantage our Brethren to have it granted as it will be any disparagement or disadvantage to be caused by it I mean in being an occasion of all that in and guilt that all those bring upon themselves that rail and cry out so much upon it that separate and divide from it and studiously maintain and keep up an unreasonable and downright Schism against it But certainly all men will see that this is an offence onely taken and not given and ought no more to be objected against the Church than Murther and Adultery Theft and Robbery ought to be charged upon the Laws of God that declare the same to be sin Were there no such thing as the Constitution of a Church these men would not be guilty of Schism and unjust Separation from it But so if there were no Law there would be no transgression and Adulterers may as well accuse the Law for their sin in one case as Schismaticks can accuse the Constitution of the Church in the other They are both in this case equally culpable i. e. indeed not at all In a word and to conclude this Period if Piety and becoming expressions of Devotion in the publick Worship of God If Gravity Decency and Order in the Offices of Religion And if engaging men to a due respect and regard to the rules of the Gospel be sins or evils to be eschewed and dreaded by men then I will grant that Conformity to the Church of England may possibly give offence in this sence of giving of it but if not I do not see any reason to apprehend or fear any danger at all of it By these considerations it will appear we are free from giving offence by our Conformity to the Rules of our Church in this first sence of Scandal and giving Offence 2. I proceed therefore now to enquire if we cannot clear our selves sufficiently from it in the second notion of these things also And this I think will best and most plainly be determined by considering what can be thought just cause of sorrow and grief to a good man or a reasonable discouragement or hinderance to him in his way of Duty I mean still cause of these given to him by another Now these I think I may reduce pretty safely to these three Heads 1. Some dishonour offered to God and his Religion 2. The Wickedness and Profaneness of men 3. The making the way of Religion and Duty more cumbersome and difficult than otherwise it would be These are great and just causes of offence and grief to a good man It cannot but greatly afflict a good man to behold his God whom he adores and honours and loves above all things affronted and dishonoured his Laws violated his Authority contemned and trampled upon by daring and foolish men Rivers of waters saith the holy Psalmist run down mine eyes because men keep not thy law Psal 119. 136. And it cannot but be cause of the like sorrow to such a man to see other men for whom he hath a great and concerning charity and whom he loves as his own soul to live in sin
and vilifie the person and sufferings of the most holy Jesus his person as one not worthy to be obeyed and followed his blood as a thing of no value and merit And what could such Persons expect but that God would vindicate the honour of his own Son and the infinitely wise contrivance of the redemption of the World by his great undertaking in some remarkable way upon them either in this World by Temporal Judgments for this cause many are weak and sickly amongst you and many sleep or in the next without repentance by 1 Cor. 11. 30. their Eternal Damnation Obj. But the Members of Christ's Body that come to this blessed Sacrament and are destitute of saving grace tho' they make a fair profession and are free from scandalous sins are yet in an unconverted condition and this Sacrament is not a converting but a confirming Ordinance Answ Conversion may be taken in a two-fold sense 1. For turning Men from a state of open infidelity to the poofession of the Christian Faith and indeed till Men are in this sense converted they are not to be admitted to the Sacrament neither Jews nor Turks nor any others in a state of Gentilism till by Baptism they are receiv'd into Christ's Church and make profession of his Name can come to it 2. Taking conversion for the turning of those who are already baptiz'd and do profess Christ's Religion from the Evil of their ways to a serious and hearty practice of Holiness and Virtue and so this Sacrament is a converting Ordinance And indeed I do not know any more forceable Arguments to an Holy Life than what are therein represented to us What can more work upon ingenuous spirits than the discovery of such undeserv'd love and kindness Is it not enough to melt the most frozen heart into Floods of Tears and Joy to behold therein the Blessed Jesus shedding his Blood to reconcile sinners unto God What can more powerfully captivate the most rebellious spirits into obedience than the assurance of a pardon of their past transgressions by that full propitiatory Sacrifice of the Son of God What can more effectually fright Men from sin and folly than the infinite displeasure of God declared therein against all Iniquity How accursed a thing is sin will the considering Communicant say that the blessed Jesus who did but take sin upon him was made a Curse for it What a mighty evil must sin needs be when nothing could be sufficient to expiate it but the Blood of God! What an unspeakable malignity must sin have in it when it laid on the shouldiers of Omnipotency such a load of wrath as made him complain and sweat and grone and die Again Here we repeat our Baptismal Vow to God solemnly engage our selves afresh to be his faithful servants and bind our selves by a new Oath to be true to the Covenant we have made with him and certainly that Man must have a mighty love for Sin and Death that can break through all these Bonds and Obligations to come at it 3. The Third Proposition That some corrupt and scandalous Members remaining in the Communion of the Church through the want of the due exercise of Discipline in it or the negligence and connivance of the Pastors and Governours of it gives no just Cause for any to separate from her Gives no just Cause That which is chiefly pretended is That the viciousness of those Members do derive a stain and defilement on the whole Assembly and pollute the Worship of God to others as well as to themselves Here therefore I shall shew what is to be done by us that we be no way accessary to others sins and then upon that condition that we cannot be polluted by their sinful company Now many things are to be done by good men who are to joyn in mixt Assemblies that the Communion receive no perjudice by the corruption of some of its Members They are frequently to exhort and advise them for this end are we plac'd in the communion of Saints and tho' to instruct the Flock God hath appointed a whole Order of Men on purpose yet is it also the Duty of every private Christian in his place and calling to exhort one another daily whilst it is call'd to day to consider one another to provoke unto love und to good Heb. 3. 13. Heb. 10. 24. works They are prudently and with much affection to admonish and reprove them we must not be so rudely civil as to suffer sin to lie upon them without disturbance so runs the Precept Thou shalt not hate thy Brother in thy heart but thou shalt rebuke thy Brother Lev. 19. 17. and not suffer sin to be upon him and if any man be overtaken in a fault says the Apostle ye that are spiritual restore such an one in the spirit of meekness Gal. 6. 1. considering that thou also may'st be tempted They are to bewail their sins and to pray for their reformation this is the true spirit and temper of a good man he cannot see God dishhonour'd his Laws trampled upon his Brother wilfully undoing himself but he must be deeply touch'd and affected with it Rivers of water run down my eyes says the Psalmist because Men keep not thy law And when in Ezekiel's time the Jewish Church both Preists and People were very much corrupted the Holy Ghost gives it as the particular mark of the faithful and upright not that they separated but sighed and cryed for all the abominations that were done in her Of the same holy frame and Ezek. 9. 4. disposition of mind was St. Paul he could not mention those in the Church at Philippi who whilst they profest Christianity shew'd themselves by their sensuality and earthly-mindedness to be Enemies to the Cross of Christ without Sorrow and Tears Of whom says he I have told you often and now tell you weeping Phil. 3. 18. that they are Enemies to the Cross of Christ whose God is their Belly c. They are to avoid as much as they can their company especially all familiarity with them and tho' in order to their conviction and reformation and in such cases where necessary business requires it and the publick Worship of God can't be perform'd but in conjunction with such persons I may be in their company without blame yet in all other cases I am to shew my dislike and abhorrence of their sins by shunning their society If any Man obey not our Word by this 2 Thess 3. 14. Epistle note that Man and have no company with him that he may be asham'd Again says the same Apostle I wrote to you in an Epistle not to keep company if any man be a Fornicator or an Idolater or c. with such an one no not to eat If private and often repeated Admonitions by himself or before one or two more will not do they are then to tell the Church of them that by its more publick Reproofs the scandalous
to lay down our sins and instead of blocking up the way againgst any by scandalous living invite and allure them all in by exemplary Holiness and Purity and this I am sure how short soever my Discourse comes of would be a full Answer to and a perfect Confutation of this Objection FINIS THE CASE OF Indifferent Things Used in the WORSHIP of GOD Proposed and Stated by considering these QUESTIONS Qu. I. Whether things Indifferent though not Prescribed may be Lawfully used in Divine Worship or Whether there be any things Indifferent in the Worship of God Qu. II. Whether a Restraint of our Liberty in the use of such Indifferent things be a Violation of it LONDON Printed by T. Moore J. Ashburne for Fincham Gardiner at the White-Horse in Ludgate-street 1683. Books Printed for FINCHAM GARDINER A Continuation and Vindication of the Defence of Dr. Stillingfleet's Unreasonableness of Separation in Anâ—wer to Mr. Baxter and Mr. Lob c. Considerations of present use considering the Danger Resulting from the Change of our Church-Government 1. A Perswasive to Communion 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 Worship of God Proposed and Stated by considering these Questions c. 4. A Discourse about Edification 5. The Resolution of this Case of Conscience Whether the Church of England's Symbolizing so far as it doth with the Church of Rome makes it unlawful to hold Communion with the Church of England 6. A Letter to Anonymus in Answer to his Three Letters to Dr Sherlock about Church-Communion 7. Certain Cases of Conscience resolved concerning the Lawfulness of joyning with Forms of Prayer in Publick Worship In two Parts 8. The Case of mixt Communion Whether it be Lawful to separate from a Church upon the Account of promiscuous Congregations and Mixt Communion 9. An Answer to the Dissenters Objections against the Common Prayers and some other Parts of Divine Service Prescribed in the Liturgy of the Church of England 10. The Case of Kneeling at the Holy Sacrament Stated and Resolved c. The first Part. 11. Certain Cases of Conscience c The Second Part. 12. A Discourse of Profiting by Sermons and going to hear where Men think they can profit most 13. A Serious Exhortation with some Important Advices Relating to the late Cases about Conformity Recommended to the present Dissenters from the Church of England 14. An Argument for Union c. 15. The Case Kneeling at the Sacrament The Second Part 16. Some Considerations about the Case of Scandals or giving Offence to Weak-Bretheren 17. The Case of Infant-Baptism in five Questions c. 1. A Discourse about the charge of Novelty upon the Reformed Church of England made by the Papists asking of us the Question Where was our Religion before Luther 2. A Discourse about Tradition shewing what is meant by it and what Tradition is to be Received and what Tradition is to be Rejected 3. The Difference of the Case between the Separation of Protestants from the Church of Rome and the Separation of Dissenters from the Church of England 4. The Protestant Resolution of Faith c. Question Q. Whether things not prescribed in the Word of God may be Lawfully used in Divine Worship BEfore I proceed to the Case it self it will be fit to consider what the things are which the Question more immediately respects For the better understanding of which we may observe 1. That there are Essential parts of Divine Worship and which are either by Nature or Revelation so determined that they are in all Ages necessary In Natural Religion such are the Objects of it which must be Divine such are the acknowledgment of Honour and Reverence due and peculiar to those Objects as Prayer c. And in the Christian Religion such are the Sacraments of Baptism and the Lords Supper These are always to be the same in the Church 2. There are other things relating to Divine Worship which are arbitrary and variable and determined according to Circumstances as Gesture Place c. As to the former i'ts granted by the contending Parties that they are all already prescribed and that nothing in that kind can be added to what is already prescribed nor can any thing so prescribed be altered or abolished Nothing now can be made necessary and binding to all Persons Places and Ages that was not so from the beginning of Christianity and nothing that was once made so by Divine Authority can be rendred void or unnecessary by any other Therefore the Question is to be applied to the latter and then i'ts no other than Whether things in their own nature Indifferent though not prescribed in the Word of God may be lawfully used in Divine Worship Or Whether there be any thing Indifferent in the Worship of God Toward the Resolution of which I shall 1. Enquire into the Nature and state the Notion of things Indifferent 2. Shew that things Indifferent may be Lawfully used in Divine Worship 3. Consider how we may know what things are Indifferent in the VVorship of God 4. How we are to Determine our selves in the use of Indifferent things so applied 5. Shew that there is nothing required in the Worship of God in our Church but what is either Necessary in it self and so binding to all Christians or what is Indifferent and so may be Lawfully used by them 1. I shall enquire into the Nature and state the Notion of things Indifferent In doing of which we are to observe that all things with reference to Practice are reducible to these three Heads First Duty Secondly Sin Thirdly Neither Duty nor Sin Duty is either so Morally and in its own Nature or made so by Divine and Positive Command Sin is so in its own Nature or made and declared to be such by Divine and Positive Prohibition Neither Duty nor Sin is that which no Law either of Nature or Revelation hath determined and is usually known by the Name of Indifferent that is it 's of a middle Nature partaking in it self of neither extremes and may be indifferently used or forborn as in Reason and Prudence shall be thought meet Things of this kind the Apostle calls Lawfal 1 Cor. 10. 23 c. because they are the subject of no Law and what are therefore Lawful to us and which without Sin we may either chuse or refuse Thus the Apostle doth determine Rom. 4. 15. Where no Law is there is no Transgression that is it can be no transgression to omit that which the Law doth not in-joyn nor to do that which it doth not forbid for else that would be a Duty which the Law doth not in-joyn and that would be a Sin which it doth not forbid which is in effect to say there is a Law where there is none or that Duty and Sin are so without respect to any Law But now if Duty be Duty because it's in-joyned and
Sin be Sin because it s fordidden then Indifferent is Indifferent because its neither injoyed nor forbidden For as to make it a Duty there needs a Command and to make it a Sin there needs a Prohibition so where there is neither Command nor Prohibition it s neither Duty nor Sin and must be therefore Indifferent Lawful and Free So that we may as well know by the Silence of the Law what is Indifferent as we may know by its Authority what is a Duty or a Sin And I have no more Reason to think that a Duty or a Sin which it takes no notice of since all Obligation ariseth from a Law than that not to be a Duty or a Sin which it doth The Nature of Lawful things being as much determined so to be by the want of such Authority as that of Necessary is determined by it And he that shall say that 's a Duty or a Sin which is not so made and declared by any Law may as well say that 's no Duty or Sin which there is a Law about To conclude there must be a Law to make it a Transgression and the want of a Law doth necessarily suppose it to be none and what there is no Law for or against remains Indifferent in it self and Lawful to us As for instance suppose there should be a Dispute concerning Days set apart for the Service and Worship of God how must this be determined but by the Law of Nature or Revelation and how shall we be resolved in the case but by considering what the Law injoyns or forbids in it If we find it not injoyned it can be of it self no Duty if we find it not forbidden it can be of it self no Sin and consequently it 's Lawful and Indifferent and in what we neither Sin by omitting nor observing So the Apostle concludes Rom. 14. 6. He that regardeth a day regardeth it unto the Lord and he that regardeth not the day unto the Lord he doth not regard it that is there was no Law requiring it and so making the observation of it Necessary and no Law forbidding it and so making the observation of it Sinful and therefore Christians were at Liberty to observe or not to observe it as they pleased and in both they did well if so be they had a regard to the Lord in it 2. I shall shew that there are things Indifferent in the Worship of God and that such things though not prescribed may be lawfully used in it T is allowed by all that there is no Command to be expected about the Natural Circumstances of Action and which the Service cannot be celebrated without such as Time and Place and that these are left to humane Prudence to fix and determine But what those Natural Circumstances are is not so universally agreed to And if they be such as aforesaid that is such as the action cannot be performed without then it will very much serve to justify most of the things in dispute and defend our Church in the use and practice of them For what is there almost in that kind amongst us which is not Naturally or Morally necessary to the Action and if Time and Place fall under humane determination because they are naturally necessary then why not also Gesture and Habit which Worship can no more Naturally be celebrated without than the former and consequently a Surplice or Kneeling and Standing may be alike lawfully determined and used as Time for assembling together and a Church to assemble and Officiate in And what Natural Circumstances are to a Natural Action that are Moral Circumstances to a Moral Action and there are Moral as necessary to a Moral Action as there are Natural necessary to a Natural Action As for example what Time and Place are to Natural that are Method and Order to Moral and Religious Acts and can no more be separated from these than the other can be separated from the former and therefore the Method and Order of Administration in Divine Worship where not otherwise determined and appointed by God may as well be determined by Men as Time and Place with respect to the nature end and use of the Service So that the exception made against humane Appointments in Divine Worship viz. that all but natural circumstances must have a Divine Command to legitimate their use and that whatever is not prescribed is therefore prohibited is of no service to them that plead it and it remains good so far notwithstanding that there are things Indifferent in the Worship of God and that the outward Order and Administration of it is left to Christian Prudence And this I shall more particularly prove 1. From the consideration of the Rules laid down in the Gospel relating to the Administration of Divine Worship which except what refer to the Elements c. in the Sacraments are taken from the Nature of the thing and so always were obliging to all Ages under the several variations and forms of Divine Worship and will be always so to all Christians in the World viz. such as respect Order Decency and Edification insisted upon 1 Cor. 14. 26 40. So that we are no otherwise bound than as bound by these measures and where not bound by them vve are free For as in former Ages from the beginning of the World vvhere Revelation did not interpose as it did under the Mosaical Dispensation all persons vvere left at liberty and if so be they had a respect to those natural rules might choose vvhat vvays they pleased for the regulation of Divine Worship So vvhen under the Gospel vve have no other than those Natural rules except as above excepted the particular Circumstrnces are as much novv the matter of our free choice as they vvere then and this or that may be used and observed as the Case requireth and Occasion serves So that if ever there vvere things Indifferent in Gods Worship and the Administration of it was left to the Consideration and Prudence of Mankind it is so still since the Gospel keeps to those eternal Rules which even the Nature of the Thing hath invariably established and which if it ever was sufficient for the guiding of the Church of God in those particulars is certainly so when the Nature of Man is improved by new helps and so he is more capable of judging what may be sutable to that Essential VVorship which God hath prescribed under the Gospel and to Him whom that VVorship is directed to But then that which confirms this is that those Rules are also general and such as will in their use and end respect all People in the VVorld The Apostles in all their Discourses upon this subject rarely do descend to particulars and in what they do shew how far Custom and Charity and the Reason of the thing ought to govern us as in the case of mens being Uncovered in the VVorship of God for which the Apostle doth argue not from Institution but the Nature and Decency
to do or not to do in the latter it is a Mans mind reflecting upon what he hath done or not done and Judging whether he be Innocent or Culpable in the matter he reflects upon I do not know how to give a clearer account of the Nature of Conscience in general than this I have now given This I believe is the Natural Notion that all Men have of it and there is no Expression in Scripture about it but what doth confirm this Notion If indeed we put Epithites to Conscience and talk of a Good Conscience or an Evil Conscience A Tender Conscience or a Seared Conscience or the like Then it includes more both in Scripture and in Common Language than I have now mentioned But to give an account of those things I am not now concerned as being without the Limits of our present enquiry II. And now we are sufficiently prepared for our Second general Point which is touching the Rule of Conscience if indeed after what we have already said it be not superfluous to insist upon that It appears plainly by what I have represented that Conscience must always have a Rule which it is to follow and by which it is to be Govern'd For since Conscience is nothing else but a Mans Judgment concerning Actions as good or bad or Indifferent it is certain that a Man must have some measures to proceed by in order to the framing such a Judgment about Actions that is to say there must be something distinct from the Man himself that makes Actions to be good or bad or indifferent and from which by applying particular Actions to it or comparing them with it a Man may be able to Judge whether they be of the one sort or the other Now this whatever it be is that which we call the Rule of Conscience and so much it is its Rule that Conscience can be no farther a safe guide than as it follows that Rule If now it be asked what this Rule of Conscience is or what that is which makes a difference between Actions as to the Moral goodness or badness of them the Answer to it is Obvious to every Body That it can be nothing else but the Law of God For nothing can be a Duty but what Gods Law hath made so and nothing can be a Sin but what Gods Law hath forbidden the very Notion of Sin being that it is a Transgression of the Law and lastly we call a thing Lawful or Indifferent upon this very account that there is no Law of God either Commanding or Forbidding it and where there is no Law there is no Transgression So that undeniably the great nay I say the only Rule by which Conscience is to be Governed is the Law of God considered either as it Commands Actions or Forbids them or as it neither Commands them nor Forbids them But in order to the giving a more distinct account of this Rule of Conscience there is this needful to be enquired into viz. In what Sense we take or what we mean by the Law of God when we say it is the Rule of Conscience Now to this our Answer is That by the Law of God we here understand Gods Will for the Government of Mens Actions in what way soever that Will is declared to them Now the will of God is declared to Men two ways either by Nature or by Revelation so that the just and adequate Rule of Conscience is made up of two parts the Law of Nature and Gods Revealed Law By the Law of Nature we mean those Principles of Good and Evil Just and Unjust which God hath Stamp'd upon the Minds of all Men in the very Constitution of their Natures There are some things Eternally good in themselves Such as to Worship God to Honour our Parents to stand to our Covenants to Live Peaceably in the Government from which we receive Protection and the contrary to these will be Eternally Evil the Heads of all which things thus good in themselves are writ so plainly and Legibly in the Minds of Mankind that there is no Man who is come to the use of his Reason but must of necessity be convinced that to Practice these things will alway be his Duty and not to Practice them will always be Evil and a Sin Now all these Heads and Principles put together is that we call the Law of Nature and this is all the Rule of Conscience that Mankind had before God was pleased to discover his Will by more particular Revelation And this is that Law which the Apostle speaks of when he saith that the Gentiles who had not the Law of Moses yet had a Law written in their Hearts by their Acting according to which or contrary to which their Conscience did bear Witness to them and did either Accuse them or Excuse them But then Secondly to us Christians God to this Law of Nature hath superadded a Revealed Law which is contained in the Books of Holy Scriptures Which Revealed Law yet is not wholly of a different kind from the former nor doth it at all void the Obligation of it But only thus God hath in his Revealed Law declared the Precepts of the Law of Nature more certainly and accurately than before He hath given greater Force and Strength to them than they had before by the Sanctions of greater Rewards and Punishments He hath likewise herein perfected the Law of Nature and hath Obliged us in point of Duty to more and higher Instances of Vertue than Nature did strictly Oblige us to And Lastly He hath added some Positive Laws for us to observe which were not at all contained in the Law of Nature as for instance to believe in Jesus Christ in order to Salvation to make all our Applications to God in the Name of that Mediatour Christ Jesus to enter into a Christian Society by Baptism and to Exercise Communion with that Society by partaking of the Lords Supper And this is that Law which we Christians are Obliged to as well as to the Law of our Natures and which as it is a Summary of all the Laws of Nature so indeed is it a Summary of all our Duty So that if any Man will call it the great or only Rule of Christian Conscience I shall not much oppose him provided that this be always Remembred that In the Third Place when we say that the Natural and Revealed Law of God is the just Rule by which we are to Govern our Conscience or when we say that the Law of God as Revealed and contained in the Bible is to us Christians the just Rule We are so to understand this Proposition as to take into it not only all that is directly and expresly Commanded or Forbidden by either of those Laws But also all that by plain Collection of Right Reason in Applying Generals to Particulars or comparing one thing with another doth appear to be Commanded or Forbidden by them So that by the Law of Nature as it
upon which he Acts for according as this is so will his Guilt in Acting according to it be either greater or less or none at all We do not say that a Man is always Guilty of a Sin before God when upon a misinformation of Judgment he Omits that which Gods Law hath Commanded or doth that which Gods Law hath Forbidden No though these Omissions or Actions may be said to be Sins in themselves that is as to the Matter of them as being Transgressions of Gods Law Yet before we affirm that they will be imputed to a Man as such that is prove formally Sins to him we first consider the Nature of the Action and the Circumstances of the Man If we find upon Examination that the instance wherein Gods Law is Transgressed is such an instance as even an Honest minded Man may well be supposed to mistake in And if we find likewise that the Man had not sufficient means for the informing himself aright as to this matter and that he hath done all that he could do in his Circumstances to understand his Duty If in such a Case as this he be mistaken in his Duty and Act upon that mistake yet we do not say that the Man is properly Guilty of any Sin in that Action however that Action is indeed contrary to the Law of God On the contrary we believe him to be Innocent as to this matter nor will God ever call him to an Account for what he hath done or omitted in these Circumstances And the Reasons and Grounds upon which we affirm this are plain and Evident at the first hearing No Man can be Obliged to do more then what is in his Power to do And what ever a Man is not Obliged to do it is no Sin in him if he do it not So that if a Man do all that one in his Circumstances can or should do for the right understanding of his Duty If he happens to be mistaken that mistake cannot be imputed to him as a Sin because he was not Obliged to understand better And if his mistake be no Sin it is certain to Act according to that mistake can be no Sin neither So that the whole point of Sinning or not Sinning in following an Erroneous Conscience lies here Whether the Man that is thus mispersuaded is to be blamed or not blamed for his Mispersuasion If the Error he hath taken up do not proceed from his own Fault and Negligence but was the pure unavoidable Effects of the Circumstances in which he is placed which Circumstances we suppose he contributed nothing to but he was put into them by the disposition of Divine Providence Then of what Nature soever the Error be he doth not contract any guilt by any Action which he doth in pursuance of that Error But if it was in his power to Rectifie that Error if he had Means and Opportunities to inform his Conscience better and the nature of the Action was such that it was his Duty so to do So that he must be accounted guilty of a Gross and Criminal Neglect in not doing it In this Case the Man is a Transgressor and accountable unto God as such for all the Actions that he doth or omits contrary to Gods Law while he Acts under that mistake or in pursuance of it And accordingly as this Neglect or Carelesness is greater or less so is the Sinfulness of the Action which he doth in pursuance of it greater or less likewise And this is a plain account of this matter So that we see there is no Fatal unavoidable necessity laid upon any Man to commit a Sin by Acting according to his Conscience But if at any time he be brought under those sad Circumstances he brings that necessity upon himself God never put any Man into such a Condition but that he might do that Duty which was required of him and be able to give a good account of his Actions But here is the thing Men by their Vice and Wickedness by neglecting the Means of Instruction that are afforded them and not using their Reason and Understanding as they should do may suffer themselves to be brought under the Bondage of such False and Evil Principles that they shall so long as they hold those Principles fall into Sin whether they Act according to their Conscience or Act against it I have done with the general Points concerning Conscience which I thought needful to be premised as the Grounds and Principles of our following Discourse I now come to that which I at first proposed and for the sake of which all this is intended that is to speak to the Case of those that Separate from the Communion of the Church of England upon this pretence That it is against their Conscience to join with us in it Now all that I conceive needful to be done in order to a full discussion of this Case and giving satisfaction about it are these Two things First To Separate the pretences of Conscience that are truly and justly made in this matter from the false ones Or to shew who those are that can rightly plead Conscience for their Nonconformity and who those are that cannot Secondly To inquire how far this Plea of Conscience when it is truly made will Justifie any Dissenter that continnes in Separation from the Church as Established among us and what is to be done by such a Person in order to his Acting with a safe and good Conscience in this affair Our first inquiry is what is required in order to any Mans truly pleading Conscience for his refusing to joyn in Communion with the Established Church Or who those Persons are that can with justice make that Plea for themselves I think it very convenient to begin my Disquisition here because by removing all the false Pretences to Conscience the Controversy will be brought into a much less compass and the difficulties that arise will be more easily untyed The truth is if the thing be examined I believe it will be found that the pretence to Conscience in the matter we are talking of is as in many other Cases extended much farther than it ought to be My meaning is that of all those who think fit to withdraw from our Communion and to live in Disobedience to the known Laws of the Church and pretend Conscience for so doing in a great many of them it is not Conscience but some other thing mistaken for Conscience which is the Principle they Act upon So that if the true Plea of Conscience be separated from those counterfeit ones which usually usurp that Name we shall not find either the Persons to be so many that refuse Communion with us upon the Account of Conscience truly so called nor the Cases to be so many in which they do refuse it upon that Account Now in Order to the making such a Separation or Distinction between Conscience truly so called and the several Pretences to it in this business of not conforming to
the Established Worship I lay down this general Proposition That if the Principles I have laid down about Conscience be admitted then it is certainly true that no Man among us can justly plead Conscience for his Separation from the Church of England or can say that it is against his Conscience to joyn in Communion with it but only such a one as is perswaded in his own mind that he cannot Communicate with us without Sinning against God in so doing For since as we have said Conscience is nothing else but a Mans Judgment concerning Actions whether they be Duties or Sins or Indifferent And since the Law of God Commanding or Forbidding Actions or neither Commanding them nor Forbidding them is the only Rule by which a Man can Judg what Actions are Duties and what are Sins and what are Indifferent It plainly follows that as a Man cannot be bound in Conscience to do any Action which it doth not appear to him that Gods Law hath some way or other Commanded and made a Duty So neither can it go against a Mans Conscience to do any Action which he is not convinced that Gods Law hath some way or other Forbidden and so made a Sin And therefore in our present Case That Man only can justly plead Conscience for his Nonconformity that can truly say he is perswaded in his Judgment that Conformity is Forbidden by some Law of God Or which is the same thing No Man can say it is against his Conscience to joyn in our Communion but only such a one as really believes he shall Sin against some Law of God if he do joyn with us If against this it be excepted that it is very possible for a Man to be well satisfied that there is nothing directly Sinful in our Worship but yet for all that it may be against his Conscience to joyn with us in it As for instance in the Case where a Man takes it really to be his Duty to hold constant Communion with some other Congregation where he believes he can be more Edified or to which he is related by some Church Covenant To this I answer that in this Case I grant Conscience is rightly pleaded for Separation though how justifiably I do not now Examine But then I say this Plea proceeds upon the same grounds I just now laid down For if the Man as is supposed in the Case be convinced that it is his Duty by Gods Law as there is no other measure of Duty to hold Communion with others and not with us then he must at the same time be convinced that he cannot without Transgression of Gods Law that is without Sin joyn with us And that is the same Account which we give of its being against any Mans Conscience to hold Communion with us Further If it be urged against our Proposition that not only in the Case where a Man is perswaded of the Unlawfulness of our Communion but also in the Case where he only doubts of the Lawfulness of it a Man may justly plead Conscience for his Nonconformity so long as those doubts remain And therefore it is not truly said of us that in Order to the Pleading Conscience for Nonconformity one must be perswaded in his own mind that Conformity is Forbidden by some Law of God I Answer that if the Man who thus doubts of the Lawfulness of Conformity hath really entertain'd this Principle that it is a Sin to do any thing with a doubting Conscience I grant that it must go against his Conscience to conform so long as he doubts But then this is but the same thing we are contending for for therefore it goes against his Conscience to Communicate with us doubting as he doth because he believes he shall Sin against God if he should But if the Man we are speaking of do not think it a breach of Gods Law to Act with a doubting Conscience then I do not see how it can in the least go against his Conscience to Communicate with us upon that pretence So that notwithstanding these two Exceptions which are all I can think of it will still remain true that no Man can justly Plead Conscience for his Separation from the Church but he that is perswaded that he cannot joyn with it without Sinning against God Now if this Proposition be true as certainly it is then how many Mens pretences to Conscience for their Separating from us are hereby cut off And indeed how few in Comparison of the multitude of Dissenters among us will be left that can be able with Truth to say that it is against their Conscience to Communicate with us in our Prayers and in our Sacraments In the first Place it is Evident that all those who Separate from us upon Account of any private grudge or pique because they have been disobliged or have received some disappointment in the way of our Church or by the Men that are favourers of it and therefore out of a Pet will joyn themselves to another Communion All those that think they can serve their own turns more effectually by being of another way as for instance they can thereby better please a Relation from whom they have expectances they can better advance their Trade or increase their Fortunes they can better procure a Reputation or regain one that is Sunk In a word all those that to serve any ends of Pride or Interest or Passion or out of any other worldly Consideration do refuse us their Company in the Worship of God I say all such are certainly excluded from Pleading Conscience for their Separation In the second Place all those Lay People who refuse our Communion upon Account that the Pastors and Teachers whom they most Love and Reverence are not permitted to Exercise their Function among us whose Pretence it is that if these good Men were allowed to Teach in our Churches they would come to our Congregations but so long as that is refused they will hear them where they can I say all these are likewise excluded from Pleading Conscience for their Separation For however it may really and truly be against the Conscience of their Ministers to conform there being other things required of them than of ordinary People yet it is not against their Conscience so to do for they know no ill in Conformity but only that so many good Men are silenced In the third Place all those that refuse our Communion upon a meer dislike of several things in our Church Offices They do not for instance like a Form of Prayer in general and they have several things to Object against our Form in particular they do not like our Ceremonies they do not like the Surplice or the Cross in Baptism and sundry other things they find fault with Not that they have any thing to say against the Lawfulness of these things but only they have an Aversion to them All these Men likewise are cut off from Pleading Conscience for their Separation For they do
not pretend that it is unlawful or a Sin against God to joyn with us in our Service which is the only thing wherein their Conscience can be concerned but only they are not pleased with many things in our Service as fancying them not to be so decent or convenient or not to be so prudently Order'd as they would have them But what of all this Admit the things to be so as they fancy them yet still so long as they do not think there is any Sin in them it cannot go against their Conscience to joyn with any Assembly in which they are Practised Because Conscience as we have often said is not touched is not affected where no Law of God is Transgressed In the fourth Place all those that are kept from our Communion purely upon the Account of Education or acquaintance with Persons that are of another perswasion Those that have nothing to say against our Worship but only that they were bred in another way or those that would joyn with us in it but that they know a great many Religious Godly Persons that do Condemn it and therefore they dare not come at us These now may be very well meaning Men but yet they cannot reasonably Plead Conscience upon this Account for their Separation For it is not a Mans Education or the Example or Opinion of other Men that makes any Action to be a Duty or a Sin but the Law of God Commanding or Forbidding that Action And therefore before I can say that this or the other Action is against my Conscience I must believe that Gods Law hath either in general or in particular either directly or by Consequence made that Action unlawful I grant the Opinions of other Men especially those that are Learned and Pious are always to be listned to in doubtful Cases But then no Mans Opinion can be the Rule of my Conscience nor am I at all concerned in Conscience to follow it any farther than I am convinced that it declares Gods Law to me And therefore sure in this Case of Church Communion I can be but very little concerned to follow any Mans Opinion when both there are so many Persons and those as Learned and as Pious as any others that are of another Opinion and when also the Publick Law which has much more Authority than any private Opinion hath determined what I am to do in the Case So that it is great weakness sillyness not Conscience that prevails with these Men I am speaking of to live in disobedience to the Laws If indeed they be really perswaded in their own Minds that our way of Worshipping God is in any part or instance of it Unlawful or Forbidden let that Perswasion be upon what grounds it will then they may truly say it is against their Conscience to joyn with us But if they be not convinced of this I do not see how the Example or the advice of their Friends and Acquaintance can in the least give them a Title to Plead Conscience for their refusing our Communion Fifthly those that withdraw from the Church upon this Account that our Governours in their Laws and Prescriptions about Gods Worship have not rightly used the Power which they are intrusted with but have exceeded their bounds have made perhaps too great Encroachments upon Christian Liberty or laid more stress than was meet upon Indifferent things These likewise are excluded by the former Rule from Pleading Conscience for their Separation For admit the Law-givers have been to blame in the Exercise of their Power in these matters which yet is sooner said then proved and have really done more then they can answer to God for yet what is this to them The Conscience of the Governours is indeed deeply concerned about these things and they must give an Account to God for the abuse of their Authority if there be any But how this doth concern the Conscience of the Subject is not easily understood So long as what is Commanded or Enjoyned doth not appear to interfere with any Law of God But having said this I fear there is too much reason to add that those who so much stand up for Christian Liberty and would be thought the great Patrons of it do by their endless scruples about Indifferent things and refusing to Obey Authority in such matters in all appearance take the most Effectuall Course to destroy all Christian Liberty in the true Notion of it and to bring in a Religion that shall consist of Touch not Tast not Handle not and such other Uncommanded things Sixthly and lastly to name no more instances All those that can Communicate Occasionally with us in our Prayers and Sacraments As for instance those that when they have a turn to be served when there is an Office or some such thing in the Case can come to Church and receive the Communion but at other times they do not afford us their Presence These are also excluded from pretending to Conscience for their not constantly joyning in Communion with us For if indeed they did believe it was a Sin in them to joyn with us in our Prayers and Sacraments with what Conscience dare they do it at all They ought not for any worldly good to venture upon such an Action as they do believe to be forbidden by Gods Laws But if they do not believe that to joyn in our Communion is a Sinful thing as I dare say none of these Persons do then I will be bold to make the Inference that it cannot be more against their Conscience to do it Thrice than to do it Once and do it constantly than to do it Thrice But let us leave the false Pretenders to Conscience and come to the Case of those who can justly Plead Conscience for their Separation or that can truly say it is against their Conscience to joyn in our Communion Of this sort are all such and none but such as do teally believe that our Communion is unlawful or that they cannot Communicate with us without Sin as I have before proved As for those that only doubt of the Lawfulness of our Communion but are not perswaded that it is unlawful I do not here consider them because they cannot say that it is against their Conscience to Communicate with us any more than they can say that they are bound in Conscience to Communicate with us For they are uncertain as to both these things and are not determined either way But however because these men may justly Plead Conscience upon this Account that they think it is a Sin to joyn with us so long as they doubt of the Lawfulness of our Communion I shall consider their Case afterwards in a particular Discourse upon that Argument Those that I am now concerned with are such as do believe or are perswaded that there is some thing in our Worship which they cannot comply with without Sinning against God And my business is to Examine whether such a Belief or
as neither having means to cometo the knowledge of it or if he had the Circumstances of his condition not requiring that he should so accurately inform himself about it In such a Case as this I say a man cannot formally be said to be guilty of sin in obeying his Lawful Superiours though the instance in which he obeys should happen to contradict some Law of God For the Law of God here is as no Law to him that is it doth not oblige him because he neither knows it nor is bound to know it And where there is no Law there is no transgression And then further this is also to be remembred that when we own that a man may be guilty of sin as well in obeying his Superiours when he only doubts of the Lawfulness of the Action commanded as when he is Perswaded that the Action is unlawful I say this we are to remember that when ever this Case happens the mans sin doth not lye in his obeying his Superiours with a Doubting Conscience which is commonly run away with For the man would as certainly sin if in this Case he did the Action with a Perswasion that it was Lawful as he doth in doing it with a Doubt whether it be Lawful or no. But the sin lies here viz. in doing an Action which Gods Law hath forbid and which the man would have known to be an ill Action if he had been so honest and so careful in minding his Duty as he should have been It is his Acting contrary to a Law of God that here makes the matter of the sin and it is his vitious criminal Ignorance of that Law which gives the Form to it But as for the obeying his Superiours whether with a Doubt or without one that is no part or ingredient of the sin at all Fifthly We add this further That whatever Power or Right we give to our Superiours for the over-ruling a Private Doubt It is not to be extended so far as either to destroy the Truth or to supersede the Vse of those Rules I have before laid down in order to the directing a mans proceeding in the Case of a Double Doubt For this Case of obeying the Commands of our Superiours when we doubt of the Lawfulness of them being a Double Doubt as properly as any other those Rules are here to take place as much as in any other instance And therefore where ever a mans Doubts are in this Case very unequal That is to say he apprehends himself in much greater danger of sinning if he obey his Superiours in this particular instance than if he obey them not as having abundantly more Reason to believe that their Commands are Unlawful than that they are Lawful In that Case we cannot say â—e is obliged to obey but should rather disobey supposing all other Considerations be equal For no man is bound to obey his Superiours any farther than they command Lawful things And therefore if it be two to one more Probable that their Command is Vnlawful than that it is Lawful it is likewise more Probable that a man in this Instance is not to obey them And a greater Probability caeteris paribus is always to be chosen before a less according to our First Rule But then though the Authority of our Superiours alone will not in this Case be of force enough to retrieve the Ballance which is so far inclined the other way and to turn it on its own side Yet there may be and very usually are such other Arguments drawn from the Consideration of the greater sin and the more dreadful Consequences of disobeying in this instance than of obeying As will to any reasonable man out-weigh all the Probabilities on the other side so long as they are not so great as to create a perswasion and make it reasonable for the man rather to do the Action how strong soever his Doubts be of the unlawfulness of it so long as they are but Doubts than to omit it after Lawful Authority hath enjoyned it But however this happen It is always to be born in mind as before that if it should prove that our Superiours do command nothing in the particular Instances but what they Lawfully may do It will not justifie any mans disobedience to say that he apprehended it was more dangerous or more sinful to obey them than to disobey them For our Mistakes and false Reasonings will not take off from the Obligation that is upon us to obey our Lawful Superiours in their Lawful Commands unless as I have often said we can satisfie our selves that in those Instances we neither were bound nor had sufficient means to understand better And now having thus cleared our way by removing from our Question those things that are Foreign to it and which indeed by being usually blended with it have made it more Intricate than otherwise it would be we are pretty well prepared to propose our Point In the Sixth place then Excluding as we have done out of our Case all those Things and Circumstances we have been speaking of with none of which we have here to do the plain Question before us is this Whether in the Case of a pure Doubt about the Lawfulness or Vnlawfulness of an Action where the Probabilities are on both sides pretty equal and where likewise the Man concerned hath done all that he was obliged to do for the satisfying himself Whether I say in this Case the Command of a Lawful Superiour ought not so far to over-ballance the Doubt as not only to make it reasonable for the Man to do that of which he doubteth but also to oblige him so to do We hold the Affirmative of this Question and I now come to give the Reasons why we so hold which is the Second thing to be done under this Head II. Our Proposition is this That if Lawful Authority do Command us to do a thing which as on the one hand we cannot say it is Lawful so on the other hand we cannot say it is Vnlawful but our Judgment remains suspended as having equal or near equal Arguments on both sides In such a Case as this though if we were left to our own Choice we should generally forbear the Action for the Reasons I before gave yet being Commanded by our Superiours who by the Law of God have Authority over us it is not only reasonable but our Duty to do it For First of all even in point of Humility and Modesty though there was no other consideration one would think that a Subject owes as much deference to the Judgment and Discretion of his Superiours as this comes to So much influence as this even a Confessor or a Private Friend hath over our Consciences In a Case where we are altogether uncertain on both sides we usually so far submit our selves to them as to be swayed and over-ruled by what they advise and that oftentimes not so much upon Consideration of the weight and force of their Reasons
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
for fear of Offence and again in the same place Hic Charitatis rationem haberi decet sed usque ad aras Our charity to our Brother ought to be limited by this that we do not for his sake displease God The very best things and actions may be perverted by Men of ill-disposed or weak minds false consequences and unjust inferences may be strained from them as we know the grace of God in the Gospel was abused into an argument for licentiousness and Christ himself is said to be set for the fall of many St. Luke 2. 24. but still this doth not Cancel our obligations to universal obedience to Gods Law nor can it alter the nature of good and evil duty and sin which are no such uncertain contingent things as to depend upon the constructions others shall make of our actions or the conclusions they shall draw from them God Almighty in the making of his Laws hath a perfect comprehension of all the accidental events that may happen either through the weakness or wickedness of Men and we must not think our selves to be wiser than God taking upon our selves to dispense with his Commands without any allowance from him as if himself had not foreseen those inconveniences which may arise from our doing our duty it can therefore never be that obedience to God should give any real Scandal and whatever Offence may be taken at my doing of my duty it is a contradiction to imagine it imputable to me as a sin or fault for it is to suppose one to disobey God in obeying him but they alone are chargeable who are Offended by it Now by the express Command of God we are obliged to obey the lawful injunctions of our Superiours whether Civil or Ecclesiastical and if any are so hardy as to deny this they must seek for another Bible out of which to judge of Gods will for there is hardly any one duty of Religion more plainly Commanded more frequently and earnestly pressed in the New Testament than quiet and peaceable subjection to Authority both in Church and State in all things lawful and that not only to avoid punishment but for Conscience sake and to refuse obedience in such things is a sin against the fifth Commandment That the Conformity required by our Church contains not any thing in it unlawful must be granted as I have already observed by all those who make use of this Plea of Scandal from all which the necessary Conclusion is Since we may not redeem a Scandal by disobedience to God since God hath plainly required our submission to those whom he hath set over us in all things lawful since it is acknowledged by those I now discourse with that Conformity to the Church is enjoyned by a competent Authority and is lawful I say the necessary conclusion is that no Man can with a good Conscience refuse to conform only for fear of Scandal Our Dissenting Brethren when they are urged with this Argument neither do nor can deny any of the Premises they must confess that no sin may be committed upon any account whatsoever and that a Man is not bound to provide for his Brothers safety by wounding his own Soul they cannot deny but that God hath Commanded us to be subject to Lawful Authority in all things lawful but then to evade the force of this reasoning they have endeavoured to load the conclusion with some seeming difficulties and absurdities which they pretend follow from this principle that we are bound to obey notwithstanding the Scandal that may ensue upon it The chief of these I shall mention and briefly return an Answer to them 1. It is pleaded that those precepts which contain only rituals are to give place to those which do concern the welfare of Mens Bodies and much more to those which do respect the welfare of our Brothers Soul so that when both together cannot be observed we must neglect or violate the former to observe the latter That this is true even of some Commands given by God himself to which purpose our Saviour doth produce that saying of the Prophet Hosea I will have Mercy and not Sacrifice Now if Sacrifices prescribed by God himself which were so considerable a part of the Divine Worship under Moses's Law yet were to give place to acts of mercy how much more are the positive injunctions of Men that concern only the externals and circumstantials of Religion to yield to the Royal and indispensable Law of Charity of which this duty of not giving Offence to others is such an Eminent part Thus saith Mr. Jeans in his Second Part of Scholastical Divinity What Laws of any Earthly Wight whatsoever concerning Ceremonies can be more obligatory than the Commands of God touching the externals of his Worship and Service and yet it is his will and pleasure that these externals of his Worship should be laid aside for the performance of outward works of mercy If therefore the sacred Ordinances of God are to give way unto works of mercy unto the bodies of Men surely then much more is the trash of human inventions to yield unto a work of mercy to the Souls of Men. In answer to this it is readily acknowledged that when there doth happen any such interfering between two Commands of God the one Positive the other Moral the Positive ought always to give place to the Moral and by the same reason the positive Commands of our Superiours ought certainly to give way to the Moral Commands of God which are of eternal and immutable obligation They cease to bind us either in case of absolute necessity or when they plainly hinder our performance of any Moral duty to God or our Neighbour and the Church is presumed to dispense with its orders as God Almighty doth allow the neglect of his own positive Institutions in such circumstances But then this is only where the necessity is urgent and extream the sin we must otherwise commit evident and certain and at last our Obedience is dispensed withal only for that one time Thus in a case of necessity Our Saviour St. Matth. 12. 5. acquits David and his followers of all blame who being ready to perish for hunger did eat of the Shewbread which otherwise was not lawful for them to eat but had they taken a particular fancy to that Bread and refused to have eaten of any other because that best agreed with their Stomacks and was most pleasing to their Palate can we think our Saviour would have so easily excused them Or which is nearer to our Case because God did prefer acts of Mercy before Sacrifices where both could not be done yet this would not have justified any mans wholly leaving off Sacrificing or refusing to do it at Jerusalem inventing another way of Worship as more expedient than Sacrificing or choosing another place to Sacrifice in which might be more convenient for all the Jews than that City was We may leave our Prayers forsake the Church to save
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
dangerous to add as it is to detract from these written Rules we may no more do what is not Commanded then what is Forbidden This I take to be the main Argument that is brought against us in the present Controversie and if this can be Answered all the rest will be but of little Force Therefore to give what satisfaction I can to this I say first that throughout the whole Epistle to the Hebrews where Moses and Christ or the Law and the Gospel are compared the scope of the Apostle is to shew the exact Correspondence there was betwixt the Type and the Antitype and not that our Saviour had as particularly prescribed the Order of external Worship as Moses by Gods appointment had done For it is certain he did not to give but one instance of very many The manner Exod. 12. of Celebrating the Passover how it should be Killed and how it should be Eaten is it set down with every minute Circumstance But the Institution of the Supper of our Lord is not so delivered unto us We have only a short Narrative with a general Command superadded Do this in remembrance of me And when Luk. 22. 19. 1 Cor. 11. 23 24 25. St. Paul repeats it again he does it without any mention of the Posture of Receiving The Gospel which teaches us a more Spiritual way of Serving God is not so particular in the Circumstantials of Worship as the Law was and we must not affirm that it is because we would have it so We cannot prove that Christ has actually done this because we imagine that he should have done it It would be better argued if we should say The Gospel has not expressly determined these things as the Law did therefore they are left to the prudent determination of those that have the Rule over Heb. 13. 17. us to whom we are Commanded to be Obedient and submit our selves that the Episcopal Power may be equivalent to the Sacerdotal and the Service of God as regularly Administred in the Church as it was in the Temple Besides it was not a Sin even under the Law to ordain and observe some things relating to the Worship of God that were not written And these could not be esteemed additions to the Word if they were not imposed as Divine Precepts but as Prudent Constitutions appointed only for the more Orderly management of the external Offices of Religion But that any thing should be Unlawful meerly because it is not Commanded is a Doctrine I think that was never heard of among Jews or Christians till very lately God had Commanded the setting up of a Tabernacle and most punctually described how it should be made We have been told that there was not to be one Pin about it for which there was not some special Direction And God never spake a word concerning building of an House See 2 Sam. 17. yet this notwithstanding David without any Command 1 Chron. 17. had it in his thoughts to build one and Nathan in his private judgment approved of the design and God himself though he suspended the execution of it for some time commended him for it and rewarded his pious Intentions with a promise of building him 2 Chron 6. 8. another kind of House by confirming the settlement of the Crown in his Family Which is proof enough that every thing then that was not Commanded was not therefore Sinful The antient Church of the Jews were so fully satisfied in this that they made no Scruple of ordering divers things for which they could not find a Command The Feast of the Dedication is a known and pregnant instance it was of modern and humane Institution and yet our Saviour vouchsafed to be present at John 10. 22. it Some things they a little altered and added others at the Passeover as their eating of it not Standing but Sitting or Lying at the Table and their Singing a Paschal Hymn after it which with some other like Usages were observed by our blessed Lord and his Disciples and it can be no less than Blasphemy then to conceive that there could be any thing that was Sinful in them The whole matter may be concluded thus If it were not Sinful under the Law where the external Form of Divine Worship was particularly specified to admit of certain Usages that were not Commanded then much less is it Sinful to do so now under the Gospel where the external Form is not so specified where we have little more than such general Rules as these to be respectively applied by Superiors and Inferiors Let all things be done Decently and in Order 1 Cor. 14. 40. Heb. 13. 17. Rom. 4. 15. Obey them that have the Rule over you Where no Law is there is no transgression I have been something the longer in considering this Argument because the whole debate must issue here which way soever this be decided the Controversie is at an end If our Church require any thing of us that is Unlawful we are bound to Separate from her if she do not we are strictly ingaged to Communicate with her They therefore that Divide should first shew that she injoyns something Unlawful But that never was and I verily believe never can be made appear For we are told in the Person of St. Paul that All things are Lawful which must of necessity be understood 1 Cor. 6. 12. 10. 23. of things that are not Forbidden And then since it cannot be charged upon our Church that she Commands any thing that is Forbidden it must be granted that she Commands nothing but what the Apostle has declared to be Lawful What Reason then can be pretended why we should rend and tear her very Bowels Why should we run so headily into opposite Parties and Factions Why should we hazard the Protestant Cause upon a number of little disunited Independent Interests that are as much at Difference one with another as they all are with us What should make us so timorous in this when we are so daring in some other cases Why should we be afraid to joyn in Communion with a Reformed Church whose Doctrine is Orthodox whose Rites ae Innocent whose Government is Apostolical A man would wonder truly what could be pleaded in defence of a Separation when none of these can be justly accused And yet there are certain Objections brought against us which those that withdraw would fain perswade us to think sufficient to justifie their Departure To some of the chief of these I shall now endeavour to give what satisfaction I can Our Dissenting Brethren therefore are wont to plead That there is a Liturgy or Set Form of Publick Worship prescribed That there are certain Ceremonies injoyned That the use of these Controverted things gives great Scandal to the weak That they cannot Safely joyn in our mixt Communion That they leave our Assemblies for the sake of greater Edification which they can find elsewhere And for these Reasons they think
Forms of Admission as he is pleased to Institute which under the Gospel is Baptism as under the Law it was Circumcision I was discoursing of Gods visible way of Forming a Church which I asserted to be by granting a Church-Covenant which is that Divine Charter on which the Church is Founded but then lest any one should question how men are admitted into this Covenant I added that God had invested some Persons with Power and Authority to receive others into this Covenant by Baptism and by receiving them into Covenant they make them Members of that Church which is Founded on this Covenant Now what of all this will any sober Dissenter deny Here is no dispute who is invested with this Power what form of Church-Government Christ Instituted whether Episcopal or Presbyterian here is no Dispute about the validity of Orders or Succession or in what cases Baptism may be valid which is not Administred by a valid Authority This did not concern my present Argument which proceeds upon a quite different Hypothesis viz. the necessity of Communion with the one Church and Body of Christ for all those who are or would be owned to be Christians or Members of Christs Body I make no inquiry by whom they have been Baptized or whether they were rightly Baptized or not but taking all these things for granted I inquire whether Baptism do not make us Church-Members whether it makes us Members of a Particular or Universal Church whether a Church-Member be not bound to Communion with the whole Catholick Church whether he that separates from any sound part of the Catholick Church be not a Schismatick from the whole Church whether we be not bound to maintain constant Communion with that particular Church in which we live and with which we can when we please Communicate occasionally whether it be consistent with Catholick Communion to communicate with two Churches which are in a state of Separation from each other if you have any thing to say to these matters you shall have a fair hearing but all your Queries which proceed upon a mistaken Hypothesis of your own do not concern me and yet to oblige you if it be possible I shall briefly consider them 1. Your first Query is Whether a Pious Dissenter supposed to be received into the Church by such as he believes to be fully invested with sufficient Power is in as bad a condition as a Moral Heathen or in a worse than a Papist Ans The Catholick Church has been so indulgent to Hereticks and Schismaticks as to determine against the Necessity of Rebaptization if they have been once though irregularly baptized This you may find a particular account of in the Vindication of the Defence of Dr. Still p. 22. c. But the question is whether if they continue Schismaticks whatever their other pretences to Piety be their Condition be not as dangerous as the Condition of Moral Heathens and Papists 2. Whether the Submission to the Power and Censures of this Church which all must own to be a sound Church be part of the Divine Covenant which Vnites the Members of the Catholick Church to God and to each other Ans This is a captious question which must be distinctly answered A general Submission and Obedience to the Authority and Censures of the Church though it cannot properly be called a part of that Divine Covenant whereon the Church is founded which primarily respects the promise of Salvation by Christ through Faith in his Bloud yet it is a necessary Church-Duty and Essential to Church-Communion and so may be called a part of the Covenant if by the Covenant we understand all those Duties which are required of baptized Christians and Members of the Church by a Divine positive Law as Obedience to Church-Governours is But then Obedience to the Church of England is not an universal Duty incumbent on all Christians but onely on those which are or ought to live in Obedience to this particular Church for the particular exercises of Church-Authoritie and Jurisdiction is confined within certain limits as of necessitie it must be and though all Orthodox Churches must live in Communion with each other yet no particular Church can pretend to any original Authority over another Church or the Members of it as is the constant Doctrine of Protestants in opposition to the Usurpations of the Church of Rome But I perceive Sir you know no difference between the Authority and Power and the Communion of the Church But you add If it be then as he who is not admitted into this Church is no Member of the Catholick and has no right to the benefits of being a Member of Christs Body so is it with every one who is excluded by Church-Censures though excommunicated for a slight contempt or neglect nay for a wrongful cause Truly Sir I know not how any man is admitted into the Church of England any otherwise than as he is admitted into the whole Catholick Church viz by Baptism which does not make us Members of any particular Church but of the Universal Church which Obliges us to Communicate with that part of the Catholick Church wherein we live and whoever lives in England and renounces Communion with the Church of England is a Schismatick from the Cathelick Church And whoever is Excommunicated from one sound part of the Catholick Church is Excommunicated from the whole But then there is this difference between Excommunication and Schism the first is a Judicial Sentence the second is a Man 's own Choice the first is not valid unless it be inflicted for a just cause the second is always valid and does in its own nature cut Men off from all Communion with Christs Body I say in its own Nature for I will not pretend to determine the final States of Men for I know not what gracious allowances God will make for some Schismaticks no more than I do what favour he may allow to other Sinners But you proceed If it be no part of the Divine Covenant then a Man that lives here may be a true Member of the Catholick Church though he is not in Communion with this Sound Church This is another Horn of your formidable Dilemma If Obedience to the Authoritie and Censures of the particular National Church of England is no part of the Divine Covenant then those Baptized Christians who live in England are not bound to the Communion of the Church of England and may be Catholick Christians for all that As if because the Subjects of Spain are not bound to obey the King of England therefore English Men are not bound to obey him neither but may be very good Subjects for all that We are bound by the Divine Law to live in Communion with all true Catholick Churches and to obey the Governours of the Church wherein we live and therefore though Obedience to the Church of England be not a Law to all the World yet it is a Law to all English Christians inhabiting in
Disobedience but methinks it is a little absurd to say that those continue Members of the Church who separate from it Schism and Separation from the Church is just what Treason and Rebellion is in the State and such persons by your own confession cease to be sound Members You add Nay possibly that there should be several Religious Assemblies living by different Customs and Rules and yet continuing Members of the National Church is not more inconsistent than that particular places should have their particular Customs and By-Laws differing from the Common Law of the Land without making a distinct Government Ans Whatever variety and difference in the Rules of Worship in several Congregations is consistent with one Communion may be granted when the prudence of Governours sees it fit and expedient But Mr. Humphry's project which I perceive you are nibling at of making a National Church by an Act of Parliament which should declare Presbyterians Independants c. to be Parts of the National Church is certainly the cunningest way of curing Schism that ever was thought on but you may find that expedient for Union at large considered in the Vindication of the Defence of Dr. Still And thus Sir I proceed to your Third Letter and here you run nothing but Dregs and Lees and I hope you will not think it any neglect of you if I do not answer you Paragraph by Paragraph as I have done your first Letter there being little new in this but only a Repetition of your old Queries and though you know Repetitions are very convenient to lengthen a Sermon there is no need of such Arts to lengthen this Answer which is too long already Your first Charge upon me is that I only amuse People with Equivocal Words and Terms that I play Letters 3. p. 16. with the words Church and Schism which had been no fault had I played the right way with them that is had I ridiculed them as you do who think them words only fit to be played with who have found out a Church without any Government which is only an Intreague p. 12. between Clergy-men on all sides who will not allow causeless Separation from a Sound part of the Catholick p. 17. Church to be Schism but place Schism wholly in want of Charity and make it nothing else but some Divisions and Contentions between the Members of the same Church who still live in Communion with one another a true Independent Notion to justifie causeless Separations Divisions in the Church are certainly very Sinful and a degree of Schism as unnatural as if the Members of the same Body should fight with each other while they are United to the same Body but to divide from the same Body is the perfection of Schism unless a quarrel be a Rent and Schism but Separation be none You desire me to define what I mean by a Church when considered as Catholick and Universal and when taken in a more restrained sense But this I think I have done already if you had eyes to see it and you may find it done more largely in the Defence of Dr. Still But would not any Man who had ever seen this discourse which you undertake to confute wonder to hear you ask me whether a Man has a right to be of a particular p. 18. Church as he is a Christian when the whole design of that Tract is to prove that every Christian by being so is a Member of the Catholick Church and has a right to Communicate with all sound parts of the Catholick Church and bound to Communicate with that part of it in which he lives In the next place you attempt to prove that the Influences and Operations of the Holy Spirit are not confined to the Visible but Invisible Church but not p. 19. to examine your proof of it which is nothing to the purpose you may consider that the Visible and Invisible Church on Earth are not two but one Church not that every Member of the Visible Church is a Member also of the Invisible that is every profest Christian is not a true Believer but whoever is not a Member of the Visible Church and does not live in Communion with it when it may be had is not that we know of a Member of the Invisible Church We have no way to prove that any Man is a Member of the Invisible who is not a Member of the Visible Church and what we do not and cannot know does not concern us secret things belong to God and with him it becomes us to leave them But this also you may find more largely discourst in the Vindication of the Defence You urge the case of Pope Victor who as you say in a Council or full representative of that Church excommunicated p. 21. the poor Asians upon the Paschal Controversy And that each Church was far enough from owning each others Members for their own What should the poor Lay-Christians do in this divided State could they not Communicate with both or either without danger of Schism themselves Ans It is an easie matter to put hard Cases almost about any thing and if a particular hard Case which either may possibly happen or has sometimes happened is sufficient to overthrow a standing and general Rule and to confute the most plain and convincing Evidence for it there is nothing in Religion can be firm and stable In the very same manner Men Dispute against the Being of a God and a Providence against the necessity of Baptism and the Lords Supper against the Apostolical Power and Ministry and all Church-Government against the necessity of Believing many fundamental Articles of our Faith because many otherwise very good Men from the Power and Prejudice of Education or through weakness of understanding may be guilty of some damnable Heresies But must there be no standing Laws or Rules because there may happen some hard and difficult Cases Does not humane Power make Provision against such Cases by Courts of Chancery or the Prerogative of the Prince and yet maintain the Authority and Sacredness of Laws And will we not allow God himself a Power of Dispensing with Laws in hard Cases without destroying the Authority of his Laws Is not Church-Communion a necessary Duty because it may so happen that sometimes I cannot Communicate with any Church Is not Schism a very grievous and damning sin because it may happen that Men may be unavoidably innocently and without a Schismatical mind engaged in a Schism I have evidently proved the necessity of Church-Unity and Communion and the evil and danger of Schism and if you can answer the Scripture-Evidence produced in this Cause I will carefully consider it but it is no confutation of a plain Law to urge hard Cases against it which will overthrow all Laws that ever were made If you imagine or can produce any real Case wherein it is almost impossible for the Persons concerned to know that they are guilty
separate to those Churches which they account better because they never found those where they were before to them good Find the setting up Christ in your Hearts by the Ministry and then you dare to account it Antichristian Thus one in a Farewel Sermon speaking of supposed Defects in a â—nglanâ—'s Reâ—embrancer Serm. 16. p. 456. Church doth advise his Auditors Enlarge your Care and Pains in your Preparations a right Stomach makes good Nourishment of an indifferent Meal you may be warm though in a colder Air and Room than you have formerly been if you will put on more Cloaths before you come Watch your Hearts more narrowly and speak things to your Hearts more than you have done Ecclesiast 10. 10. If the Iron be blunt then must he put to more Strength But supposing it be really for Edification yet this they declare is no sufficient reason for Separation So Mr. Burroughs If you be joyned to a Pastor Iren. c. 12. p. 85. so as you believe he is set over you by Christ to be a Pastor to you though this Man hath meaner Gifts than others and it would be more comfortable for you to have another Pastor yet this is not enough to cause you to desert him whom Christ hath set over you And so the Ministers in New-England Platform c. 13. § 5. deliver their Minds To separate from a Church for greater Enlargements with just Grief to the Church is unlawful and sinful So when this Question was put Are they not at all times obliged to use the Means which are most edifying It 's answered by the aforesaid Author They may say at all times when they have nothing to outweigh Continuat of Morn Exerc. Serm. 4. p. 91. their own Edification So that Edification may be outweighed and then it can be no standing and sufficient Reason So Mr. Burroughs declares in this Irenic c. 12. p. 85 86. case Men must consider not only what the thing is in its own Nature but what it is to them how it stands in reference to their Relations It is not enough to say the thing is in it self better but is it better in all the References I have and it hath Is it better in regard of others in regard of the Publick for the helping me in all my Relations may it not help one way and hinder many ways Of the same Opinion is Mr. Baxter Many things saith he Defence part 1. p. 85. must concur and especially a respect to the publick Good to know which is the best So that Edification is not to be adjudged of alone our own Improvement is not to determine us in our Actions and especially not with respect to Church-Communion for then other Reasons do give Law to it and over-rule it Thus we see those that dissent from the Church in other things agree with her in this And they give several Reasons and Arguments for it First If we were sure we could not profit yet we must Arg. 1 come to do Homage to God and shew Reverence to his Lect. 28. p. 129 309. Ordinance This is Mr. Hildersham's Opinion Secondly The leaving a Church for better Edification Arg. 2 is built upon a false and dangerous Principle which is that we must always chuse the best So Mr. Burroughs To hold what is in it self best must be chosen Irenic c. 12. p. 84 87. and done not weighing Circumstances or References is a dividing Principle And afterwards he saith A Christian without comparing one thing with another will hack and hew and disturb himself and others in the ways of Religion I belive some of you have known those who whatsoever they have conceived to be better than other they have presently followed with all Eagerness Of this V. Ball 's Tryal c. 4. p. 75 76 78 never considering Circumstances References or Consequences but the thing is good it must be done yet being wearied with this they have after grown loose in as great an excess the other way Thirdly This Principle of better Edification if followed Arg. 3 would bring in Confusion So Mr. Hildersham Lect. 66. This factious Disposition of the Hearers of God's Word hath in all Ages been the cause of much Confusion in the Church of God and greatly hindred the Fruit of the Gospel of Christ This saith Mr. Brinsly the moderate Author of the late Irenicum Mr. Burroughs Arraignment of Schism p. 48. will by no means allow but condemns as the direct way to bring in all kind of Disorder and Confusion into the Church and I think none who are judicious but will therein subscribe to him It will not be amiss to transcribe his own Words It is in it self a better thing to enjoy a Ministry Burrough's Iren. c. 12. p. 85. of the most eminent Gifts and Graces than one of lower but if this should be made a Rule that a Man who is under a Pastor who is faithful and in some good measure gifted upon another Mans coming into the Country that is more eminent he should forsake his Pastor and joyn to the other and if after this still a more eminent Man comes he should leave the former and joyn to him and by the same Law a Pastor who hath a good People yet if others be more likely to receive more good he may leave his own People and go to them what Confusion and Disorder would there be continually in the Church This is condemned also by the New-England Ministers This Mr. Cawdrey doth expose If a Man may lawfully Platform Pref. p. 7. c. 13. § 1. Independ a Schism p. 50. separate from a true Church c. only with a good mind to serve God in Church-Institutions true or conceited by his own Light all the Sectaries and Separatists Donatists Brownists in the World may be justified This saith another speaking of hearing Methermeneut p. 72 74. for this Reason is a Church-destroying Principle sure if one Member be not fixed then not another nor another c. and then not the Pastor nor Teacher and so farewel Churches Fourthly This will be endless So Mr. Burroughs Arg. 4 Men must not separate from a Church though there Irenic c. 23. p. 163. be Corruptions in it to gather into a new Church which may be more pure and in some respects more comfortable First Because we never find the Saints in Scripture separating or raising Churches in such a Case And Secondly There would be no continuance in Church-Fellowship if this were admitted for what Church is so pure and hath all things so comfortable but within a while another Church will be more pure and some things will be more comfortable there And he concludes with this prudent Maxim The general Peace of the Church should be more regarded than some comfortable Accommodations to our selves So Mr. Baxter Defence part 1. p. 85. What if twenty Ministers be one abler than another in their several degrees doth it
upon that as sufficient to put an end to all Contentions and Debates that whatever might be Plausibly urged against it from the Jewish Practice and the Representation even of Angels adoring after that manner and from the reason of the thing as a signification of Shame and Reverence or from the Practice of Idolators that dâ—d many of them Worship Uncovered yet he peremptorily 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 the Peace of the Church depending upon the Observation of its Coustoms that is infinitely to be preferred before Scrupulosity and Niceness or a meer inclination to a contrary Practice For in publick cases a Man is not to go his own way or to have his own mind for that would bring in Confusion one Man having as much a right as another There must be somewhat Established some Common Order and Bond of Union and if Confusion is before such Establishment then to break that Establishment would bring in Confusion and where that is likely to ensue it is not worth the while for the Tryal of a new Experiment to decry and throw down what is already Established or Used in a Church because we think better of another for saith a Grave Author and well Skill'd in these matters The very change of a Custom though it may Aug. Epist 118. happen to profit yet doth disturb by its Novelty Publick Peace is worth all new Offers if the Church is Disquieted and its Peace Endangered by them though in themselves better and it is better to labour under the infirmity of publick Order than the mischief of being without it or what is next to that the Trial of some Form seemingly of a better Cast and Mould that hath not yet been experimented I say it again Infirmity in a Church is better than Confusion or Destruction which is the Consequent of it And I had rather choose that as I would a House to have one with some Faults rather then to have none at all And if I cannot have them mended when tolerable I think my self bound not only to bear with them but to do all I can for its preservation though with them and to observe all things that are lawful for its support and encouragement In doing thus I serve God and his Church my own Soul and the Souls of others promote Religion and Charity in the World For God is not the Author of Confusion but of Peace in all the 1 Cor. 14. 33. Churches of the Saints In things which neither we nor the Worship are the worse for but the Church the better for observing Peace and Order is far to be prefer'd before Niceties And certainly neither we nor the Service of God can be the worse for what God hath concluded nothing in What the Gospel looks as is the Main and Essential parts of Religion in Doctrine Worship and Practice And if these be Secured we are under no Obligation to contend for or against the modes and circumstances of things further than the Churches Order and Peace is concerned in them So the Apostle Let not your Good be Evil spoken of For the Kingdom of Rom. 14. 16. God is not Meat and Drink but Righteousness Peace and Joy in the Holy-Ghost the promoting Love and Charity and substantial Righteousness He that in these things Serveth Christ is acceptable to God and approved of Men The Beauty of the Kings Daughter is within Aug. Epist 86. saith St. Austin and all its observations are but its vesture which though various in different Churches are no prejudice to the Common Faith nor to him that useth them And therefore what he and his mother received from St. Ambrose and looked upon as a Divine Oracle is worthy to be recommended to all That in all things not contrary to Truth and good Manners Epist 118. 86. it becometh 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 And if the Custom and Practice of a Church should be thus taken into consideration by a Good Man then certainly much more ought it so to be when that is Established and is made a Law and is backed by Authority For then to stand in Opposition is not only an Offence but an Affront and to insist upon the Gratifying our own Inclination against publick Order is to contend whether we or our Superiours shall Govern whether our Will or the publick Good and Order must take place And what can be the Issue of such a Temper but the distraction if not Dissolution of Government which as it cannot be without Governed as well as Governours so cannot be preserved without the submission of the Governed in all lawful things to the Gevernours and the permitting them to choose and determine in things of that kind as they shall see meet It s pleaded That there should be a Liberty left to Christians in things Vndetermined in Scripture and such things indeed there are that Christians may have a Liberty in and yet hold Communion as in Posture c. though Decency Would plead for Uniformity in those things also but there are other things which they must agree in or else there can be no publick Worship or Christian Communion which yet they differ in as much as the other As now whether Worship is to be celebrated with or without a Form whether the Lord's Supper is to be received in the Morning or Evening whether Prayers should be long or short c. Now unless one of these disagreeing Parties doth Yield to the other or there be a Power in Superiours and Guides to determine for them and they are to submit to them in it there will be nothing but confusion And why Superiours may not then Command and why Inferiours are not to obey in all things of the like kind In Posture or Habit as well as the time above specified and Forms I understand not To conlude this if we find any thing required or generally practised in a Church that is not Forbidden in Scripture or any thing Omitted or Forbidden in a Church that is not required in Scripture we may and ought to Act or to forbear as they that are of its Communion do generally Act or forbear or the Laws of that Communion require and in such things are to be determined by the publick Voice of the Communion that is Authority Custom or the Majority But to this it will be said If we are thus to be determined Object in our Practice then where is our Christian Liberty which being only in Indifferent things if we are restrained in the use of them we are also restrained in our Liberty which yet the Apostle exhorts Christians to stand fast in Gal. 5. 1. 1. This is no argument to those that say
the Ecclesiastical Laws A Humane Law grounded upon a Divine or to speak more properly a Divine Law modify'd or Clothed with several Circumstances of Mans Appointment doth Create another kind of Obligation upon every Subject than a Law that is purely Humane that is to say a Law the matter of which is neither Good nor Evil in it self but perfectly indifferent In the former Case we must yield Obedience to the Law as to the Law of God however it comes Clothed with Circumstances of Mans Appointment In the other Case we only yield Obedience as to the Command of Man and for no other reason than that God in general hath Obliged us to Obey our Superiors To make this a little plainer let us for Instance take the business of Paying Tribute and Custom in this Nation in which Case there is a Complication of a Divine Law with a Humane as it is in the Case we are now upon That every Subject should Pay Tribute to whom Tribute is due Custom to whom Custom is due is a Law of God as being a branch both of Natural and Christian Justice But out of what goods we should Pay Tribute or Custom or what Proportion of those Goods should be Paid this is not defined either by the Law of Nature or the Law of the Gospel but is left to the Determination of the Municipal Laws of every Kingdom But now because Humane Authority doth interpose in this Affair and settles what every Man is to Pay to the King and out of what Commodities doth it therefore follow that if a Man can by Fraud or Concealment detain the Kings Right from him that he incurs no other guilt for this but only the Transgressing of an Act of Parliament and the being Obnoxious to the Penalties in Case he be detected No certainly for all that the Customs in that manner and form be settled upon the King by Humane Law only yet the matter of that Law being a point of Natural Justice between Man and Man the Man that is thus Guilty ought to look upon himself as an Offender against the Divine Law as an unjust Person before God And his willingness to Submit to the Forfeiture of his Goods will not render him less unjust or more excuseable The Case is much the same as to the matter we have now before us It is not a meer Humane Law or Act of Parliament that Obligeth us to keep the Unity of the Church to bring our Châ—ldren to be made Christians by Baptisme to meet together at Solemn times for the Profession of our Faith for the Worshipping God for the Commemorating the Death of our Saviour in the Sacrament of his Supper All this is tyed upon us by the Laws of Christ These things are as much required of us by God as Christians as it is required that we should Pay the King and every Man what is due to them if we would not be dishonest unjust It is true that the particular Forms and Modes and Circumstances of doing these things are not Commanded nor Prescribed by the Laws of Christ in this Instance of Church Communion no more than they are prescribed by the Laws of God in the other Instance I gave But they are left intirely to the Prudence and Discretion of the Governours that God hath set over us in Ecclesiastical matters just as they are in the other But in the mean time these things thus Clothed by Humane Authority as to their Circumstances Yet being for the Matter of them bound upon us by Christ himself we can no more deny our Obedience to the Publick Laws about them than we can in the other Instance I have named And that Man may as well for Instance purge himself from the Imputation of Knavery before God that will contrive a way of his own for the Paying his just Debts contrary to what the Law of the Land hath declared to be Just and Honest As any Man can acquit himself from the Sin of Schism before God that will chuse a way of his own for the Publick Worship different from and in Opposition to what the Laws of the Church have prescribed always supposing that the Worship Established be Commanded by just Authority and there be nothing required in it as a Condition of Communion that is against the Laws of Jesus Christ The Sum of all this is that it is every Mans Duty by the Laws of Christ as well as the Laws of Man to Worship God in the way of the Church so long as there is nothing required in that Worship that can justly offend the Conscience of a Wise and Good Christian And therefore there is more in departing from the Communion of the Church when we can Lawfully hold it than meerly the Violation of a Statute or a Humane Law for we cannot do it without breaking the Law of God Nay so much is it against the Law of God to do this that I think no Authority upon Earth can warrant it So that even if there was a Law made which should Ordain that wilful causless Separation from the Established Church should be allowed and tolerated and no Man should be called to an Account for it Yet nevertheless such a Separation would still be a Schism would still be a Sin against God for no Humane Law can make that Lawful which Gods Law hath forbid There now only remains our last general Head about Conscience to be spoken to and then we have done with our Preliminary Points And that is concerning the Authority of Conscience or how far a Man is Obliged to follow or be guided by his Conscience in his Actions When we speak of the Obligation of Conscience or of being bound in Conscience to do or not to do an Action it sufficiently appears from what hath been said that we can mean no more by these Phrases than this that we are convinced in our Judgment that it is our Duty to do this or the other Action because we believe that God hath Commanded it Or we are perswaded in our Judgment that we ought to forbear this or the other Action because we believe that God hath forbidden it This now being that which we mean by the Obligation of Conscience here we come to inquire how far this Perswasion or Judgment of ours concerning what is our Duty and what is Sinful hath Authority over us how far it doth Oblige us to Act or not Act according to it Now in Order to the resolving of this we must take Notice that our Judgment concernâ—ng what God hath Commanded or Forbidden or left Indifferent is either true or false We either make a right Judgment of our Duty or we make a wrong one In the former Case we call our Judgment a Right Conscience in the latter we call it an Erroneous Conscience As for those Cases where we doubt and hesitate and know not well how to make any Judgment at all which is that we call a Doubting Conscience but indeed
Perswasion of the Vnlawfulness of our Communion will justifie any Mans Separation from us Or how far it will do it And what is to be done by such Persons in order either to their Communicating or not Communicating with us with a safe Conscience This is our second Point and I apply my self to it There are a great many among us that would with all their Hearts as they say Obey the Laws of the Church and joyn in our Worship and Sacraments but they are really perswaded that they cannot do it without Sin For there are some things required of them as Conditions of Communicating with us which are Forbidden by the Laws of God As for Instance it is against the Commands of Christ to appoint or to use any thing in the Worship of God which God himself hath not appointed For this is to add to the word of God and to Teach for Doctrines the Commandments and Traditions of Men. It is against the Commands of Jesus Christ to Stint the Spirit in Prayer which all those that use a Form of Prayer must necessarily do It is against the Commands of Jesus Christ to use any Significant Ceremony in Religion As for Instance the Cross in Baptism for that is to make new Sacraments It is against the Commands of Jesus Christ to kneel at the Lords Supper for that is directly to contradict our Saviours Example in his Institution of that Sacrament and Savours besides of Popish Idolatry Since therefore there are these Sinful things in our Worship and those too imposed as Terms of Communion how can we blame them if they withdraw themselves from us Would we have them joyn with us in these Practices which they verily believe to be Sins Where then was their Conscience They might perhaps by this means shew how much they were the Servants of Men But what would become of their Fidelity to Jesus Christ What now shall we say to this They themselves are so well satisfi'd with their own doings in these matters that they do not think they are in the least to be blamed for refusing us their Communion so long as things stand thus with them They are sure they herein follow their own Conscience and therefore they cannot doubt but they are in a safe Condition and may justifie their Proceedings to God and to all the World let us say what we please This is the Case Now in Answer to it we must grant them these two things First of all that if indeed they be right in their Judgment and those things which they except against in our Communion be really Unlawful and Forbidden by Jesus Christ then they are not at all to be blamed for their not Communicating with us For in that Case Separation is not a Sin but a Duty We being for ever bound to Obey God rather than Men. And Secondly supposing they be mistaken in their Judgment and think that to be unlawful and Forbidden by God which is not really so Yet so long as this perswasion continues though it be a false one we think they cannot without Sin joyn in our Communion For even an Erroneous Conscience as we have shewed binds thus far that a Man cannot without Sin Act in Contradiction to it These two things I say we grant them and let them make the best advantage of them But then this is the point we stand upon and which if it be true will render this whole Plea for Nonconformity upon account of Conscience as I have now opened it wholly insufficient viz. If it should prove that our Dissenters are mistaken in their Judgment and that our Governours do indeed require nothing of them in the matter of Church Communion but what they may comply with without breach of Gods Law Then I say it will not acquit them from being Guilty of Sin before God in withdrawing from our Communion to say that they really believed our Communion to be unlawful and upon that Account they durst not joyn with us It is not my Province here to Answer all their Objections against our Forms of Prayer our Ceremonies our Orders and Rules in Administring Sacraments and other things that concern our Communion This hath been done several times and of late by several Persons which have treated of all these particular matters and who have shewed with great clearness and strength that there is nothing required in our Church Appointments which is in the least inconsistent with or Forbidden by any Law of Jesus Christ But on the contrary the Establishments of our Church are for Gravity Decency Purity and agreeableness with the Primitive Christianity the most approvable and the least Exceptionable of any Church Constitutions at this day in the World These things therefore I meddle not with but this is the point I am concerned in Whether supposing it be every Mans Duty to joyn in Communion with the Established Church and there be nothing required in that Communion but what may be Lawfully Practised I say supposing these two things whether it will be sufficient to acquit any Man from Sin that withdraws from that Communion upon this Account that through his mistake he believes he cannot joyn with us without Sin Or thus whether will any mans perswasion that there are Sinful Terms required in our Communion when yet there are not any justifie his Separation from us This is the general Question truly put And this I give as the Answer to it That in general speaking a Mans Erroneous Perswasion doth not dissolve the Obligation of Gods Law or justifie any Mans Transgression of his Duty So that if Gods Law doth Command me to hold Communion with the Church where I have no just cause to break it And I have no just cause to break it in this particular Case but only I think I have My misperswasion in this matter doth not discharge me from my Obligation to keep the Communion of the Church or acquit me from Sin before God if I break it The Truth and Reason of this I have fully shewed before in what I have said about the Authority of Conscience I shall now only by way of further Confirmation ask this Question Was St. Paul guilty of Sin or no when he Persecuted the Christians being verily perswaded in his own mind that he ought so to do and that he Sinned if he did not If any will say that St. Paul did not Sin in this because he did but Act according to his Conscience they contradict his own express words For he acknowledgeth himself to be the greatest of Sinners and that for this very reason because he persecuted the Church of Christ If they say that he did Sin in doing this Then they must at the same time acknowledg that a Mans perswasion that a thing is a Duty will not excuse him from guilt in practising it if really and indeed it be against Gods Law And on the other side by the same reason that a Mans perswasion that a thing is unlawful will
it But on the other side he hath no Doubt but is very well assured that he may Lawfully let it alone Or on the contrary he is very well satisfied that the Action is Lawful and that he may do it But he doubts whether Gods Law hath not made it a Duty so that he cannot Lawfully omit it This is that which we call a Single Doubt We call that a Double Doubt where a man doubts on both sides of an Action that is to say he doubts on one side whether he be not bound to do this Action Gods Law for any thing he knows made it a Duty But on the other side so is the Action circumstantiated with respect to him or he with respect to it that he doubts whether he be not bound to forbear the Action as it is now presented to him Gods Law having for any thing he knows forbid it So that he is at a loss what to do because he fears he may sin whether he doth the Action or doth it not I say it will be impossible to put any doubtful Case wherein a mans Conscience is concerned which will not fall under one of these two Heads I. Now as to the Case of a Single Doubt we may thus apply the General Rule That when a man doubts only on one side of an Action there it is more Reasonable to chuse that side of the Action concerning which he hath no Doubt than the other concerning which he Doubts supposing all other Considerations be equal And here comes in that famous Maxim which hath obtained both among Christians and Heathens Quod dubitas ne feceris which with the restriction I have now mentioned will for ever be good Advice in all Cases of this Nature It must needs be unreasonable to venture upon any Action where a man hath the least Fear or Suspicion that it is possible he may transgress some Law of God by it when it is in his power to Act without any Fear or Suspicion of that kind supposing all along this Consideration of the possibility of offending by this Action be not over-ballanced and so the Fear of it removed by other Considerations which the Circumstances of the Action do suggest Thus for Instance Here is a Man Doubts whether it be allowable in a Christian to drink a Health or put out Money to Interest or to go to Law as having conversed with such Men or such Books as do condemn these Practices and that not without some Colour from the Word of God The man is not indeed so convinced by their Discourses as to have taken up any Opinion or Perswasion that these Practices are unlawful nor would he censure any man that uses them because he sees there are as Good Men and for any thing he knows as good Arguments for the other side But he is not so clear in his judgment about these Points as to be able to pronounce any thing positively concerning them either way He cannot say that he believes them Lawful though he is not perswaded that they are unlawful which is the true state of a Doubting mind Now in these and all other such like Cases the Rule is plain That while a mans judgment continues thus in suspence it is more Reasonable for him to forbear these Practices For there is no pretence of obligation upon him from Gods Law to engage in any of them and why should he rashly throw himself into danger by venturing upon an Action concerning which he is uncertain whether it be Lawful or no He runs no hazard by forbearing these things but if he practise them he doth Thus far is right But then as I said this is always to be understood with this Proviso Caeteris paribus For if there should happen to be such other Considerations in the Action as have force enough to over-ballance this Consideration of Vncertainty it will then be reasonable to chuse that side of the Action concerning which I did before doubt rather than that of which I had no doubt at all Thus if the Man that makes a Question about any of the three things I before mentioned should light into such Circumstances that for Instance he must either drink such a single Health or a quarrel is like to ensue nay and that perhaps to the danger of some of the Lives of the Company Or again that he has no means of improving his Money in which his whole Fortune consists in any other way but by that of Vsury so that he and his Family must in time starve unless they be maintained by this Course Or lastly if an Orphan be trusted to his Care and the Estate of that Orphan is so entangled that he must be put upon the necessity either of waging a Law Suit for the clearing it or suffering his near Relation committed to his Charge to be defrauded of his Right I say if the Cases happen to be thus circumstantiated he that before doubted in General whether it was Lawful to drink a Health or to put out money to Vsury or to ingage in Law-Suits may I should think certainly satisfie himself that it is not only Lawful but Expedient in this particular Case notwithstanding his General Doubt to do any of these things and if he be a Wise Man he will make no Scruple of Acting accordingly Indeed he cannot be well excused if he do not thus Act. For it will not be sufficient to say I doubt whether these Practices are Lawful or Vnlawful and therefore I dare not ingage in them Why Man if you only Doubt about them you do by this ackonwledge that for any thing you know they may be Lawful as well as that for any thing you know they may be Vnlawful And if you be thus in aequilibrio sure such pressing Considerations as those which are presented in this Case ought to turn the Ballance Otherwise I do not know how you will answer either to your self or the World for the Consequences that may ensue For my part in such Cases as these I should think that nothing less than a Belief or Perswasion that the thing in Question is unlawful will justifie a mans Prudence in Acting on that side which he calls the Safer and which had not these Circumstances happened would really have been so To conclude if a great Good may be compassed or a great Evil may be avoided by doing a thing concerning which we have a General Speculative Doubt whether it be Lawful or no This very Consideration is in Reason sufficient to silence the Doubt That is it is enough to perswade us that it is not only Lawful but Advisable to do that in the present Circumstances which before and out of those Circumstances we Doubted in general whether it was Lawful to be done or no. II. And thus much concerning the Rule by which we are to proceed in the Case of a Single Doubt I now come to consider that which we call a Double Doubt and to shew what is to be
Duty that he generally takes the opportunities that are offered him of doing Honour to our Lord by partaking in his Supper though perhaps he is not often very well satisfied about his Preparation But so it happens that since his last Communicating he finds his Mind in a much worse frame than it used to be He hath lived more loosly and carelesly than he was wont or perhaps he hath been very lately guilty of some grievous sin that lies heavy upon his Conscience So that when his next usual time of Receiving comes he cannot but apprehend himself in a very unfit condition to Communicate in so sacred a Mystery Upon this he is in a great perplexity what to do For on the one side he thinks he hath more reason to believe that he offends God if he comes to the Sacrament in these Circumstances than if he forbears because he is more certain that there is a Law of God that forbids him to come unworthily than he is certain that there is a Law of God that commands him to receive every time that he hath opportunity But now on the other hand if it should prove that he is really bound by Gods Law to Commemorate the Death of Christ in the Sacrament every time that an opportunity is offered He is sensible in that Case it is a greater sin to neglect this Duty than to perform it unworthily so long still as he performs it out of Conscience What now is the Man to do in these Circumstances This is an exact Instance of the Case I spoke to in my third Proposition where on one side the Man runs a greater danger of sinning but on the other side if he should prove mistaken he sins in a greater degree Now for a Resolution of this Case I say That if the Question be put concerning the Mans absenting himself only once or twice from the Communion in order to the exercise of Repentance and the putting himself into a better frame of mind against another opportunity The Answer according to our Third Proposition must be this That it is very reasonable thus to do And there is good ground for this Answer For certainly a Man is more in danger of sinning if he receive unworthily than if he do not receive every time that there is a Communion There being an express Law against the one but no express Law obliging to the other For Christ hath no more appointed that we should receive the Sacrament so many times in a year than he hath appointed that we should Pray so many times in a day or that we should give such a determinate proportion of our Annual Income to Charitable Uses As to these things he hath bound us in the General but as to the Particulars the Circumstances of our Condition and the Laws of our Superiors are to determine us Only this we are to remember that the oftner we perform these Duties it is the better and we can hardly be said to be Christians if we do not perform them frequently This now being so Though it be true that a Man would be guilty of a greater sin if he should at any time though but once abstain from the Communion than if he should come to it with such unworthiness as we are here speaking of supposing that Christs Law had precisely tied him up to communicate every time that a Communion is appointed Yet since there is so little appearance of Reason to conclude that Christ has thus tied him up and withal on the other hand he runs so certain a danger of sinning if he should Communicate at this time apprehending himself to be so unworthy as he doth This Consideration of the certain danger must needs in this Case overballance the other of the greater sin and make it appear more Reasonable to the Man to suspend his receiving to another Opportunity against which time he hopes to be better prepared than to adventure upon it in his present Circumstances But then if the Question be put concerning the Mans absenting himself Customarily and Habitually from the Lords Table upon this account of unworthiness that which I have now said will not hold For in this Case the Man is in as much danger of sinning by not receiving at all as by receiving unworthily nay and a great deal more as I shewed in my first particular about this Case And withal he is guilty of a much greater sin in wholly withdrawing from the Sacrament than in coming to it though with never so great Apprehensions of his own unworthiness as I shewed in my second And therefore since the danger is at least equal on both sides he must chuse that side on which the least sin lies That is to say he must Communicate frequently at least so often as the Laws of the Church do enjoin him which is three times a year though he be in danger of doing it unworthily rather than not Communicate at all Having thus gone through Three of our Propositions concerning a Double Doubt All that remains is to put our Case about the Sacrament so as that it may serve for an Instance or Illustration of our fourth and last Here therefore we are to suppose our Doubting Man to be in such a Condition that he apprehends he runs an equal danger of sinning whether he receives the Sacrament or receives it not And withall so unskilful a Judge is he of the morality of Actions that he apprehends no great difference in the degree of the sin whether he do the one or the other In this Case now all the Man can do is to consider what Inducements he has in Point of Prudence or Interest to do or to forbear the Action he doubts about for since all other Considerations in the Case are equal those of this kind are to turn the Ballance according to our Fourth Proposition But if the Case turn upon this Point I dare say no man will be long doubtful whether he should frequent the Sacrament in obedience to the Laws or forbear it For it is plain that he Acts more Prudently and more consults his own Advantage both Temporal and Spiritual As for the Temporal Advantages which a Man receives by obeying the Laws in this matter I will not now insist on them though they are neither few nor inconsiderable That which I desire chiefly to be here considered is this That in point of Spiritual Advantages it is much more advisable for our Doubtting Person to come to the Sacrament than to abstain from it For by frequenting this Ordinance he takes the best method both to grow more worthy if he be now unworthy and likewise to cure the Doubts and Scruples he is now troubled with But if he neglect this means of Grace he not only takes an effectual course to increase and perpetuate his Fears and Doubts it being very probable that the longer he defers his receiving the Sacrament still the more doubtful will he be of his being qualified for it But also is
as meerly upon this account that we take them to be abler to guide us in these Affairs than we our selves are as having better considered them and seeing farther into them than we do I dare say there are few of those we are now disputing with if a Doubt should happen to arise in their Conscience about the Lawfulness of any Practice in their Trade or their other civil Concernments and they should upon this apply to some Friend of theirs of whose Learning and Prudence and Honesty they have a good Opinion and put their Case to him But would if the Doubt was so equal on both sides as in our Case we suppose it without any great difficulty be concluded and determined by the Judgment of the man they thus apply to especially if that Judgment be seconded by the suffrage of some other Learned Pious men whom they have thought fit upon this occasion to consult likewise If now the Opinions of one or two Private men be of so much weight as to over-rule a Doubt about the Lawfulness of an Action when the Reasons on both sides are equal Is it not very hard if the joynt Resolution and Determination of our Publick Governours whose Office and Business it is to Consult and Command for the Best should not in such a Case have the same Influence upon the Minds of their own Subjects Or would it not argue much Self-conceit and Arrogance and a very mean Opinion of our Superiours and a great Contempt of their Authority to refuse that respect to them which we give to every private Man almost that we think wiser than our selves Secondly I desire that may be taken notice of which the Casuists and in particular our Excellent Bishop Sanderson have urged in this affair viz. It is a known Rule in Law That in all disputed Cases he that is in possession of the thing contended for hath the advantage of the other that contends with him supposing all other things be equal In controverted Matters the Right is always presumed to be on the side of the Possessor unless there be a good Reason shewn to the contrary Thus for Instance If I be in possession of an Estate which another man makes a claim to And it is equally doubtful whether that Estate belongs to him or me yet so long as I have the Possession of it I have a good Title to it by the Laws of God and Man nor can I without injustice be dispossessed of it till my Adversary hath made it appear that he hath a better Title to it than I. Let us now apply this Rule to our present Case Here is a Contest or Dispute between the Superiour and the Subject about a matter of Right as to a particular Action The Superiour saith it is his Right to Command his Subject in this Instance and accordingly doth Command him The Subject saith that he doubts whether his Superiour hath Right to Command him in this Instance because he doubts whether this Command be not against the Law of God But in the mean time the Superiour is in actual possession of the Power and Authority to Command though it be uncertain and doubtful whether as to this Instance he do not exceed the just Limits of his Power Why certainly by the former Rule so long as the Case is thus doubtful the Subject must yield and at no hand by his disobedience dispossess his Superiour of that Authority he is possessed of till he be convinced in his own Conscience that he hath greater reason to disobey in this Instance than to obey which in our Case it is impossible he should have because we here suppose that the Reasons on both sides are equal But Thirdly If this Argument appear too subtile let the Question before us be decided by the Common Rule viz. That in all Doubtful Cases the safer side is to be chosen Now putting the Point upon this Issue I ask which is safest with respect to Conscience for a man to obey his Superiours in such a purely Doubtful Case as we here speak of Or to disobey them I think this Question will soon be answered by any Man that will attend to what I am going to represent viz. There is a Plain Law of God and acknowledged by us to be so that Commands us to obey our Superiours in all Lawful things But as to the particular Case about which we are now supposed to Doubt it is very Vncertain and Questionable to us even after our best endeavours to satisfie our selves whether there be any Law of God which forbiddeth that thing which our Superiours have enjoyned us This now being so we thus argue If it should prove that our Superiours do in this Instance command an Vnlawful thing yet the hazard we run in obeying them is very small and inconsiderable in comparison with that we run in disobeying them supposing it should indeed prove that they command nothing but what is Just and Right and conducing to the Publick Good For by doing the former by obeying our Superiours the only hazard we run is of transgressing some Vnknown Law of God some Law which doth no way appear to us all that we can pronounce after our best enquiry being no more than this that it may be there is such a Law and it may be there is not And therefore we may reasonably presume that if there should indeed be such a Law of God it is either not of such consequence that we in our Circumstances were bound to know it or if it was that we had no sufficient means to cometo the Knowledge of it in each of which Cases as I said a Mans Ignorance doth excuse the violation of the Law But now on the other side if in such an Instance as this we disobey Authority when it hath peremptorly laid its Commands upon us we venture upon a much greater danger For in that Case we run the hazard of transgressing a Plain Law of God a Law of which no man can or ought to be supposed Ignorant and withal a Law it is of such Importance and Consequence to Mankind that we may truly say the very being as well as the Happiness of all Societies depend upon it Supposing now this to be a true Account of the hazard we run in Acting on one side or the other in our present Question I leave it to any indifferent person to judge whether it be not much safer in such Circumstances as we here speak of to obey our Lawful Superiours with a Doubting Conscience than to disobey them with a Doubting Conscience Fourthly If there yet remain any dispute in this matter let if you please our Saviour's Rule determine it As ye would that men should do unto you even so do ye unto them We desire no more favour for our Superiours than this eternal Law of Equity will oblige us to If a man will but be so impartial as to pass the same Judgment in the Cause of Authority when he is
Conscience hath passed no Dictate no Verdict in this matter and therefore he cannot be supposed to act against any such Dictate or Verdict The man is in such a state that he either believes he may act as he doth without violation of his Duty Or at least he hath no belief to the contrary so that his Conscience doth not any way Condemn him And as for the other thing of his not chusing that side of the Doubtful Case which appeared to him most reasonable it is true if there was any Law of God which obliged him to make such a Choice he would be guilty of sin if he chose otherwise But now it doth not appear that there is any such Law of God Nay so far from that that it appears from St. Paul that there is no such Law but that every man is left to his own liberty in this matter always supposing that he take care not to chuse or do any thing that he judgeth to be inconsistent with his Duty which in our Case we do likâ—wise suppose But then having said this we must add further That though we here have concluded that no man in a Doubtful Case properly so called is strictly obliged by any Law of God under the penalty of sin to chuse one side more than another but may indifferently chuse either Yet in the first place Whoever doth believe or is perswaded in his own Mind either that he ought not at all to Act against a Doubt or that in every Doubtful Case he is bound to follow the safer side such a man so long as he so believes cannot without sin Act according to the Principles we have now laid down And Secondly We are far from encouraging any man to act thus hand over head in a Doubtful Case much less from commending him for so doing For though we say that strictly speaking a man doth not sin which way soever he Act in a purely doubtful Case yet on the other hand I think he is but in a low Dispensation as to Vertue and Goodness that never looks further into his Actions nor takes more care about them than only that they be not directly sinful He that is heartily Good will with St. Paul not only consider what things are Lawful but what things are Expedient and do Edifie It will not ordinarily be sufficient to ingage such a man in an Action to satisfie him that he may do that Action without transgressing any Law of God But he will examine whether the doing or forbearing the Action doth more serve the ends of Vertue and Charity And accordingly as that appears to him so will he determine his Choice In a word The Better and the more Vertuous any man is the more delicate and tender sense will he have not only of that which the Law of God hath precisely made his Duty and so in a proper Sense doth oblige his Conscience but also of every thing that is Reasonable and Excellent and Praise-worthy So that it will really grate upon his mind to do many things which in strict speaking cannot be accounted unlawful or forbidden And thus it is in our present Case If we suppose a man to be a Devout Christian and a sincere Lover of God he will not be able to prevail with himself in a Case where he Doubteth to chuse either side indiscriminately though if he should I do not know as I said before what Law of God he transgresseth but he will weigh and consider the Reasons on both sides and that which appears to him after such Consideration to be most reasonable and conducing to Gods Glory and his own and the Worlds good that shall have the preference To come to a conclusion The sum of what I have now said is this As Conscience is the immediate Guide of our Actions So the Rule by which Conscience it self is to be guided is the Law of God and nothing else Though therefore we cannot be safe in following our Conscience where our Conscience is not guided by the Law of God because as I have often said our false Judgment of things doth not cancel our Obligation to act according to what the Laws of God require of us unless we can justly plead unblameable Ignorance of those Laws Yet on the other hand where-ever Conscience tells us that we must do this Action because the Law of God hath commanded it we must do it or we sin And again Where-ever Conscience tells us that we must avoid this Action because the Law of God hath forbidden it we must forbear that Action or we sin But if Conscience cannot say that this Action is commanded or forbidden there we are not tyed under the penalty of sinning either to do or to forbear that Action But yet if a Mans Conscience should thus suggest to him Though I cannot say directly that this Action is a Duty or that it is a sin because I am at a loss how the Law of God stands as to this matter and consequently I cannot lay any direct Obligation upon you either way yet my advice is that you would chuse this way rather than the other For this way all things considered appears most fit and reasonable to be chosen for there is more Probability that this is the right way than the other or there is less harm though you should be mistaken in going this way than the other Now in this Case though a man be not properly obliged under the Guilt of Sin to obey his Conscience because Conscience doth not propose the Choice to him under that Condition yet if he be a Wise and a Good man he will undoubtedly chuse that side which Conscience all things considered hath represented to him to be the most fit and reasonable to be chosen And thus much concerning our Fourth and last General Head Thus have I largely discussed the Case of a Doubting Conscience in general and answered all the Considerable Enquiries that can be made about it I am not sensible that I have left any material difficulty in this Argument untouched though I am very sensible I have said a great deal more than needed in order to the Resolution of that Case for the sake of which I undertook this Discourse But I intended such a discussion of this Argument as would serve for all other Cases as well as that I do not know whether it be needful to make a particular Application of what I have said upon a Doubting Conscience to the Case of our present Dissenters However it will not be amiss if I offer something towards it if it be but to save the Reader who is concerned in that Case the Labour and Trouble of doing it The Case which I am to speak to is briefly this There are several Persons that are unsatisfied about the Lawfulness of our Communion as it is established and enjoyned and that upon several Accounts Some perhaps Doubt of the Lawfulness of all Forms of Prayer Others about the Lawfulness of our
of his and God Almighty who is the Judge of all mens Hearts and Circumstances doth know he had not means and opportunities to understand better FINIS ERRATA PAg. 27. l. 7. for annot cavoid r. cannot avoid p. 35. l. 3. for this last r. the least p. 43. l. 28. after Spiritual add by doing the Former p. 61. l. 1. r. because p. 62. l. penult r. Chrysostome p. 66. l. 9. r. no wise p. 94. l. 19. r. Probability ADVERTISEMENT 1. A Discourse concerning Conscience the first Part. Wherein an Account is given of the Nature and Rule and Obligation of it And the Case of those who Separate from the Communion of the Church of England as by Law Estalished upon this Pretence That it is against their Conscience tojoyn in it is stated and discussed 2. A Resolution of this Case viz. Whether it be Lawful to Separate from the Publick Worship of God in the Parochial Assemblies of England upon that New Pretence which some Men make of the Case being much altered now from what it was when the Puritans wrote against the Brownists and the Presbyterians against the Independent 3. Resolution of two Cases of Conscience in two Discourses The First Of the Lawfulness of Compliance with all the Ceremonies of the Church of England The Second Of the necessity of the use of Common-Prayer in Publick A DISCOURSE ABOUT A SCRVPVLOVS CONSCIENCE Containing some PLAIN DIRECTIONS For the CURE of it LONDON Printed for T. Basset at the George in Fleet-street and B. Tooke at the Ship in St. Paul's Church-yard 1684. A DISCOURSE ABOUT A Scrupulous Conscience c. IT is not my Design in the following Discourse to expose or upbraid the Weakness of any of our Dissenting Brethren but rather charitably to contribute what I can towards the healing and curing of it and this I take for granted That we cannot do greater Service either to the Church of Christ or Souls of Men than by all prudent Means to root those needless Scruples out of their Minds which have been the Occasion of such unchristian Separations and dangerous Divisions amongst us at first begun and still maintained generally upon the Account of such Things as I verily believe a well-instructed Conscience need not be concerned or disturbed about Here I shall first shew what I understand by a Scrupulous Conscience then observe some few things concerning it and lastly offer some plain Rules and Means by which we may best get rid of it First What is a Scrupulous Conscience Now Conscience as it is a Rule of our Actions is nothing else but a Man's Mind or Judgment concerning the moral Goodness or Evil Lawfulness or Unlawfulness of Things and as this Judgment is either true or false so is our Conscience either good and well-grounded or erroneous The Divine Law made known to us either by the light of Nature or plain Scripture or direct consequence from it such as any honest man may understand is the Rule of Conscience or of that Judgment we make of the lawfulness or unlawfulness of things so that our Conscience is a safe Rule and Guide of Actions no further than as it self is directed and warranted by the Law of God 1. A good and well grounded Conscience is when we carefully abstain from whatever God hath forbidden don't neglect doing any thing which he hath commanded and as for other Mattes left indifferent and at liberty we do them or forbea doing of them according as the Rules of obedience to Superiours Prudence and Charity do require This is the Health and sound State of the Mind 2. An erroneous Conscience is when we judge that to be evil or unnecessary which God hath expresly commanded and is our Duty or that to be good and necessary which he hath plainly forbid and is really sinful Now our Consciences cannot alter the nature of things that which is our Duty remaineth so and we sin by omitting it notwithstanding we in our Consciences think it unlawful to be done and what is really Evil continueth such and is Sin in us however our Consciences tell us it is our duty to do it and the fault is more or less compassionable and pardonable as the causes of the Error are more or less voluntary and avoidable This is a grievous Disease and deadly Sickness of the Mind when we thus grosly err in our Judgments and act according to our mistaken Opinion of Things 3. A scrupulous Conscience is conversant about things in their own Nature indifferent and it consists Either in strictly tying up our selves to some things which God hath no where commanded as the Pharisees made great conscience of washing before they did eat and abundance of other unnecessary Rites and Usages they had of Mens own inventing and devising which they as religiously nay more carefully observed than the indisputable Commands of God himself Or in a conscientious abstaining from somethings which are not forbid nor any ways unlawful Touch not taste not handle not doubting and fearing where no Fear is thinking that they should as much offend God by eating some kind of Meats wearing some Garments as they should do were they guilty of Murder and Adultery Which is the Case of many amongst us who by such Scrupulosity about little matters seem more precise and austere than other good and honest Christians are or themselves need or ought to be Far be it from me by any thing I shall now say to discourage the greatest and tenderest care any Christian can take to keep himself from all Sin from all Occasions and Temptations to it from the least appearance of Evil of what is really such and to do any thing that is in it self sinful out of confidence that it is lawful is far worse and a more grievous Offence than to abstain from many things which are truly lawful out of an Opinion that they are sinful Notwithstanding this I cannot but reckon it the chief Policy of the Devil the grand Enemy of all that is good when he cannot persuade us that there is nothing at all sinful or unlawful than to make us suspect every thing for such or at least that there is great danger of displeasing God by the most indifferent and innocent Actions by these means ensnaring and entangling Mens Consciences and rendring Religion a most troublesome Burden to them A scrupulous Conscience therefore starts and boggles where there is no real Evil or Mischief is afraid of omitting or doing what may be omitted or done without Sin Which I know not how better to illustrate than by those unaccountable Antipathies or Prejudices that some men have against some sort of Meats or living Creatures which have not the least harm or hurt in them yet are so offensive and dreadful to such Persons that they fly from them as they would from a Tyger or Bear and avoid them as they would do the Plague or Poyson Just thus do some Men run out of the Church at the sight of a
Authority for it is not so absurd as may by some be imagined for the Common People to take upon trust from their lawful Teachers what they are not competent Judges of themselves But the difficulty here is how shall a private Christian govern himself when the very Guides and Ministers of Religion determine differently concerning these matters in question amongst us Some warranting and allowing them others as much disapproving and condemning them by what Rule shall he choose his Guide To which I briefly reply 1. As for those who scruple at Conformity and are tolerably able to judge for themselves let not such relye barely upon the Authority either of the one or the other All we desire of them is that they would equally hear both sides that they would think that the Ministers of the Church of England have some Sense and Conscience too as well as other Men and are able to say somewhat for what they do themselves or require of others that laying aside all Prejudices Favour to or admiration of Mens Persons they would weigh and consider the Arguments that may be propounded to them being diffident of their own Apprehensions and indifferent to either part of the Question that they would think it no shame to change their Mind when they see good reason for it Could we thus prevail with the People diligently to examine the Merits of the cause our Church would 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. But as for those who are not so capable of examining or judging for themselves as few of the common People who separate from us really are they not being able to give any tolerable account of their dissent from us only in general Words declaiming against Popery Superstition Antichristian and Unscriptural Ceremonies Humane Traditions c. such had better trust to and depend on those Ministers of known Sufficiency for their Office who are regularly and by the Laws of the Land set over them than any other Guides or Teachers that they can choose for themselves This to be sure is the safer course which in doubtful cases is always to be taken I speak now of these present Controversies about Forms and Ceremonies so hotly agitated amongst us which are above the Sphere of common People out of their profession 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 satisfie our selves we follow the Advice of the publickly authorized Guides and Preachers of Religion if they chance to mislead us we have something to say or apologize for our selves Our Error is more excusable and pardonable as being occasion'd by those to whose Judgment by God's Command we did owe a great Respect and Submission But when we choose Instructors and Counsellors to our selves according to our own Fancy and liking and they teach us contrary to the Doctrine of our lawful Ministers if then we prove to be in the wrong and are betray'd into Sin we may thank our own Wantonness for it and are more severely accomptable for such Mistakes Thus let a Man that is troubled with any threatning disease apply himself rather to the Licensed Physicians or Chyrurgions of approved Skill and Honesty and if he chance to miscarry under them yet he hath this contentment that he used the best and wisest means for his Health and Recovery But if he leaves them all and will hearken only to Quacks and Empiricks tho they advise him quite contrary to what the others prescribed if under their hands he grows worse and worse he must then charge his own perverse Folly or idle Humour as the cause of his Ruine 4. In order to the curing of our Scruples we should thoroughly understand and 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 hath expresly commanded that is sinful which God hath forbid that is lawful which God hath not by any Law obliging us either commanded or forbid 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 forbid in Scripture where fitting is required where praying by a Form is forbid and extemporary Prayers are enjoyned then indeed the Dispute would soon be at an end but if neither the one nor the 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 required 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 hath not prescribed and appointed or that hath been abused to evil Purposes And on these two Mistakes are chiefly grounded Mens Scruples about indifferent Rites and Ceremonies in God's Worship 1. That only is said to be lawful in God's Worship which he himself hath prescribed and appointed so that this is thought Exception sufficient against the Forms and Usages of our Church that though they are not forbid yet they are no where commanded in Scripture Who hath required these things at your hands Now here I only ask Where our Saviour or his Apostles have forbid us doing any thing in God's Worship which is not by himself commanded or where in the New Testament we are told that God will be angry with us for doing any thing which he hath no where forbid either by general or particular Laws For unless this can be shewn there can be no colour for this Pretence and we are sufficiently sure that no such Place can be produced out of the Bible It is acknowledged by all that the Holy Scriptures as to all that is necessary to be believed or done in order to Salvation as to all the essential and substantial Parts of Divine Worship is a plain and perfect Rule but it is as certain that the outward Circumstances of Time Place Habit and Gesture are not determined in the New Testament as they were in many cases by Moses's Law and yet God cannot be at least visibly and publickly worshipped without them If therefore these be not determined in Scripture and it is unlawful to
faces at our Devotions and when they observe these and other the like rules they may then with a better grace tho with little reason find fault with our Conformity as Offensive to them I would be loth to say any thing that should exasperate or provoke any of the Dissenters whose satisfaction I design I very well know their weakness that they cannot endure to be told of their faults However I must tell them that there are no sort of persons in the Christian World professing Religion and Godliness that have done such Scandalous things as some of those who call themselves Protestant Dissenters I forbear to name particulars 2. As for those who are satisfied concerning the lawfulness of Conformity I would desire them so to order their return to the Church as not to give any just Offence to those whom they forsake that is to say that they would do it heartily and sincerely that all may see they Conformed with a willing mind being persuaded that it is their duty so to do and not meerly to satisfie the Law or to save their Purses or to get into an Office or to capacitate them to Vote or the like For such a kind of Conformity as some practise and call Occasional Communion which is coming to Church and Sacrament to serve a turn is truly Scandalous to all good Men of what persuasion soever FINIS Books Printed for FINCHAM GARDINER A Continuation and Vindication of the Defence of Dr. Stillingfleet's Unreasonableness of Separation in Answer to Mr. Baxter and Mr. Lob c. Considerations of present use considering the Danger Resulting from the Change of our Church-Government 1. A Perswasive to Communion 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 Worship of God Proposed and Stated by considering these Questions c. 4. A Discourse about Edification 5. The Resolution of this Case of Conscience Whether the Church of England's Symbolizing so far as it doth with the Church of Rome makes it unlawful to hold Communion with the Church of England 6. A Letter to Anonymus in Answer to his Three Letters to Dr. Sherlock about Church-Communion 7. Certain Cases of Conscience resolved concerning the Lawfulness of joyning with Forms of Prayer in Publick Worship In two Parts 8. The Case of Mixt Communion Whether it be Lawful to separate from a Church upon the Account of promiscuous Congregations and Mixâ— Communion 9. An Answer to the Dissenters Objections against the Common Prayers and some other Parts of Divine Service Prescribed in the Liturgy of the Church of England 10. The Case of Kneeling at the Holy Sacrament Stated and Resolved c. The First Part. 11. Certain Cases of Conscience c. The Second Part. 12. A Discourse of Profiting by Sermons and of going to hear where Men think they can profit most 13. A serious Exhortation with some Important Advices Relating to the late Cases about Conformity Recommended to the Present Dissenters from the Church of England 14. An Argument for Union c. 15. The Case of Kneeling at the Sacrament The Second Part. 1. A Discourse about the charge of Novelty upon the Reformed Church of England made by the Papists asking of us the Question Where was our Religion before Luther 2. A Discourse about Tradition shewing what is meant by it and what Tradition is to be Received and what Tradition is to be Rejected 3. The Difference of the Case between the Separation of Protestants from the Church of Rome and the Separation of Dissenters from the Church of England 4. The Protestant Resolution of Faith c. THE Charge of Scandal And giving OFFENCE BY CONFORMITY Refelled And Reflected back upon SEPARATION And that place of St. Paul 1 Cor. 10. 32. that hath been so usually urged by Dissenters in this Case asserted to its true Sence and vindicated from favouring the end for which it hath beed quoted by them Give none offence neither to the Jews nor to the Gentiles nor to the Church of God LONDON Printed for Fincham Gardiner at the White-Horse in Ludgate-street 1683. To the Christian-Reader THou art not ignorant I suppose that this Argument hath been handled by a far better Pen an Author that doth every thing he undertakes with that accuracy of Judgement and strength of Reason that becomes a person of his Character and therefore mayest wonder what so mean a Scribe hath to do after him I have but this Answer onely to give thee that it is neither affectation nor conceit of this Paper that is the cause This Discourse was shewed to some persons both friends to the world and the Author who was wholly ignorant that the Subject was undertaken by another and was thought fit to be stay'd till it was seen what that Discourse expected then would be with a design to suppress it wholly had the Method or the Management been near alike which because it was not and because the same thing that hits one fancy may not do so to another or not to all it was determined to venture this to the Publick also Which the Author doth with Prayer for and true Charity unto all that need such Discourses beseeching God that they may honestly and impartially consider what hath been offered to them of late to satisfie all their most material Scruples and Objections and that they may find a suitable effect upon their own minds THE Charge of Scandal And giving OFFENCE by CONFORMITY REFELLED THere are very few things within the Sphere of Christian Religion that more trouble and distract the thoughts of men than how to govern themselves and order their actions with respect to things that are called Indifferent In things that are essentially good or evil or are made so by some plain Command or Prohibition of our great Law giver all Parties are soon agreed and there needs not any question or dispute between them in these The Rule is plain and supposing men honest there cannot be any great mistake about them But in things that are left wholly undetermined by God and neither directly nor by just and natural consequence either enjoyned or prohibited by any Law of his there men sail not by so plain a Compass but have a larger Scope and may more easily mistake their Course It cannot therefore be less than a good service to men to direct them safely in this Unbeaten track and to prescribe to them such Rules to which if they carefully attend they can never fall into any dangerous errour This is our Apostles charitable design in this Chapter to which I shall have a respect in managing this present Argument viz. 1 Cor. 10. and by governing our selves by the measures of his discourse in it we may be able to hit those great Rules of our actions in these things The Apostles discourse is indeed but of one particular instance of these i e. the eating or not eating things that had
and a contempt of God to wound and destroy their precious Souls and to provide matter for eternal torments And any thing that discourageth a man in the way of his Duty or renders it more perplexed and troublesome to him may be justly called an offence or grief to him I do not easily understand how this kind of offence can properly be said to be given any other but by some of these ways Now let our debate be determined by these things and let the issue be Whether Conformity can be grieving others upon any of these accounts It cannot I am sure be said or at least nothing like a proof be offered that we offend men hereby because we either do any dishonour to God or to his holy Religion by it It is much truer that we bring honour and reputation to both by it To God by taking the best course we can pitch upon to secure the Solemnity and Decency of his Worship And to Religion by taking care that all the great Services of it be performed decently and to edification and not profaned by the ignorance or temerity of every bold and unskilful undertaker 2. Nor secondly can it be pretended that hereby we let men be spectators of our wickedness and profaneness and so grieve and make sad the hearts of good men while they see us without any fear of God before our eyes I have that charity for the modesty and integrity of our Dissenting Brethren that they will not call our Worship Idolatry and the service of Baal any longer though it cannot be dissembled that a great part of the less-discerning Rabble have been taught by them so to account and think of it But if any have been misled into such an Opinion I would beg them to come and behold our way of publick Worship for their better conviction 3. No nor thirdly do I see how it can be any offence upon its making the way of Religion and Duty more cumbersome or difficult to others than it would be It would be a hard matter for any to shew where he is hindred from being good by seeing others conformable to the Church or what obstruction that casts in his way of Duty I will at any time undertake to shew that it may be an help and advantage to him and a furtherance to him in the way of Religion and Salvation but let or hinderance it can be none If it be pretended that by this we make Religion cumbersome and clog that with Rites and Ceremonies that is a plain and easie thing I grant the Objection were reasonable and the Charge of giving offence undeniable were it either so as it began to be of old in St. Augustin's time or is at present in the Roman-Church clogged with so many antick and garish Ceremonies that it requires a great deal of study to be an exact Ritualist and is a thousand times harder to remember and observe all the Rites and Modes of any Service and Office in Religion than to do the thing a hundred times over But let me beg men to consider whether this Charge can be just against a Church and its Liturgy which enjoyn but three Ceremonies against which the Dissenters themselves can object and these too not in the same but so many distinct Services and which are little more than barely determining those circumstances of Habit and Gesture which are natural and necessary to all our actions If these things can be thought to make the Practice and Services of Religion burthensome then any of the Postures in which our Brethren perform their Worship will make that so too and then the Directory will be as chargeable and faulty in this as the Liturgy These things will be sufficient upon this first way that I proposed to shew that conforming to the Institutions of the Church is not concerned in any thing the Apostle speaks in this place nor can come under his notion of giving offence to any which he speaks against in it I will not deny but that some may be offended and troubled at it It is too visible how much some men are troubled to see a Church constituted among us to behold it protected by Law and Power and to see so great a deference and respect payd unto it and its way of Worship as blessed be God is at present by multitudes both of great and good men I do not doubt but it is greatly maligned and envyed by men and it is little less than a continual trouble and grief to them It is contrary to their private Interest and so long as it is so their designs and aims will never be effected But so ill men are troubled at a good Government and Thieves and Robbers may be vexed that Honest men are secured from them and these may as well cry out that the Laws and the Government are an offence to them as others may that they are offended at the Church and Conformity Sure we know things better than to call every thing a Scandal that any man is vexed or troubled at If we must acknowledge that an offence or forbear doing every thing for fear of Scandal that every ill designing man is pleased to take exceptions against it is more than probable we must do nothing at all nor venture to undertake any thing till we see whether all persons will be pleased with it or not We must not call every thing an offence that pleaseth not the humour of every man for then nothing can avoid that character But this is not enough to say in this matter for it will serve us much further not onely to justifie our selves from this imputation but to reflect it back upon those that charge us For when we have well considered things we shall find that the Scandal will fall upon our Accusers and not Conformity but Separation will be found to be the giving Offence and that in both the notions of giving it that have been named Separation is indeed the Scandal as being both an evil in it self and that which betrays others into many evils If ever there were such a thing as Schism in the world or if the Separation of the Donatists or any that were ever made from the Communion of a National Church were a Schism I think it hath been sufficiently proved on our behalf that the present Separation from our Church is really a Schism And if Schism be a damnable sin and so it is if we will judge either by the Doctrines of the Apostles or their best Successors yea and few sins greater then we shall need no other argument to prove Separation to be indeed the Scandal and that in the greatest notion of Scandal too And we sadly see what great mischiefs it is introductive of what uncharitableness and railing what pride and censoriousness it betrays men into Schism was scarce ever content to be alone Men think it not enough to separate from the Communion of the Church unless they go to justifie their Separation by
the Jews and St. Paul enlargeth their reason in this Chapter because it was a confederating with Devils and being partakers at the table of Devils which he condemns as hugely unbecoming them that eat at the Lords Table vers 20 21. Grotius is so exact in this matter as to tell us there were two ways by which men might eat of things sacrificed to Idols in the sence that the Apostles mean 1. Vel aliquid a Tabulâ c i. e. when at their publick Feasts they sent some part off the Table to be offered solemnly to the Idol and to entitle him to the whole Feast 2. Vel ab Aris ad Mensam defertis or when they took some considerable portion from the Altar and fed upon it at the Table as part of the Idols portion as was hinted before Now for the Christians to be present at and to partake of these things was that which the Apostles forbid in that Canon and which St. Paul also is so sharp upon from 14 to 24 of this Chapter But that which he speaks of afterwards is vastly different from it and plainly means either that part of the Offering which they afterwards spent in their ordinary meals or which was publickly sold afterwards in the Shambles The first of these is easily understood and was common among them to offer some part of the Sacrifice to their Idols and to reserve the rest for their own common use not looking upon it as sacred and the Idols portion as in some great and solemn Sacrifices they did but that which was truly their own and at their own disposal especially having given a part of it to their Gods The other i. e. what was sold in the Shamble◠Criticks give two accounts of 1. It was either that which the Butcher sold part of which he himself had offered to the Idol before he brought the rest to the Shambles Vel à Mà cellario qui ante quam ad marcellum carnes ferret aliquid de Aram in dedisset 2. Or that part which belonged to the Priests and which they often sold having it's probable either more than they could spend themselves or perhaps having a mind to exchange it for other meat which they might purchase with the money they sold it for Vel à Sacerdotibus qui partes quae ipsis cederent venderent saith the same Author Now these were the meats about which the Apostles had made no order at all So that men were at their liberty to buy and eat them if they pleased without asking any questions or troubling themselves with any scruples of Conscience about them And which the Apostle commands them to abstain then onely from when knowing what they were their eating them might wound the Conscience of another and they might give offence thereby either to the Jews or to the Gentiles or to the Church of God To the Jews by seeing them make so little a matter of Idolatry to the Gentiles by encouraging and confirming them in that Idolatry which they ought by all means to seek to wean them from and to the Church of God by seeing them so careless and regardless of the good and benefit of others and without all charity to them By all which I hope it is sufficiently clear that these things to which this Speech relates were not onely indifferent in their nature but undetermined also as to their use no Law having passed one way or other upon them Now this makes them vastly different from the things scrupled among us and by conformity to which Offence is pretended to be given For the use of these is already determined and several Laws both of the Church and State both of the Spiritual and Temporal power have passed upon them So that how indifferent soever they may be in themselves yet it is not indifferent to us whether we observe them or not but it is now matter of Obedience and plain Duty and these things are tied upon the Conscience as strongly as any matter of humane command is or can be And therefore in these we cannot shew favour and indulgence to others if we would for we our selves are under Authority and bound up by the Laws of those above us We have not the power of doing or forbearing nor can we now abstain for fear of offending another man's Conscience without grievously wounding and worse offending of our own and whatever may be the consequence of our Conformity as to another man yet we certainly Know the neglect of it will be a downright sin and a grievous guilt unto our selves So that in this matter the fear of giving offence to others is impertinent a Snare and a direct Temptation and as improperly urged against Conformity as it would be against any other Duty how necessary soever to tell us that there are a great many men that will be offended with our doing of it In this and all such cases we stand immediately responsible unto God and may justly retort that so much abused and mistaken Apology of the Apostles Whether it be not right to obey God rather than regard men judge ye 2. But there is a second thing yet incumbent upon me and that is to shew that supposing the Text were pertinently urged against Conformity and there were a real possibility of giving offence by it yet it would not serve that purpose that it is produced for by our Dissenting Brethren but on the contrary make very much against them And this I shall endeavour to make good by considering who the persons are that the Apostle here cautions us against giving offence unto not onely the Jews nor onely the Gentiles nor both these onely but the Church of God From whence before I come to the main Improvement of this place against the purpose and practice of our Dissenting Brethren we may take occasion to consider what the object of Scandal is and who they are that men ought especially to regard in their cares not to give it At the time of the Apostles writing this there were three different sorts of men that might be offended with eating things offered to Idols the Jews the Gentiles and the body of Christians which he here calls the Church of God In analogy to which there are and always will be different Parties among which men converse Upon which account it will concern us to enquire what our respects to them in this matter ought to be and whether we ought to make any difference among them And this we may resolve our selves in by considering the Cases that concern us which I think are onely these two 1. When we perceive or have reason to think that what we are going to do will offend all Parties equally then no doubt but we ought to forbear it This was plainly the case here The Jews might be prejudiced against Christianity by this practice seeing its Professors make so little a matter of Idolatry which their Law so strictly prohibited and God had always declared himself so
that the Minister should read all as he does other parts of the Scripture but that the People should recite the Psalms and other Godly Hymns with the Minister by way of Answering in turns as the Custom is with us more or less in most Places For when the People rise up to do this in order to the Solemn Praising of God this is much nearer to singing wherein the People are allowed to bear a part in God's Vocal Praise than the Ministers reciting all himself and shutting out the People from any part thereof But it is Objected particularly against the reciting of one Verse of the Psalms by the Minister and another by the People that the Peoples Verse is in a manner lost to some of the Congregation since in the confused murmur of so many Voices nothing can be distinctly heard Now if our Brethren should admit of what has been already said in Vindication of these Responsals I hope this Objection will not be insisted upon I grant that which is uttered in the Congregation ought to be understood But then those Verses of the Psalms which are uttered by the Congregation may be well enough understood by every one that has a Book or who is acquainted competently well with the Psalms themselves I need not say much in answer to this Objection because it may be removed by every one that makes it if he can read and will bring a Book along with him And as for those that cannot I must needs say that it is not so hard as is pretended for them also to take those Verses which are uttered by those that are near them if they will carefully attend And I have been credibly informed that some devout People that could never read have attained to an ability of reciting most of the Psalms without Book by often hearing them in those Churches where they are alternately recited which shews that the Murmur is not so confused but that the Words may be heard ditinctly enough to be understood if one has a mind to it And then they that cannot read may by this means be more quickned than otherwise they would be to learn to read however to attend and to learn the Psalms without Book that they also may bear their part Vocally with the Congregation in God's Praises I shall add That for the most part the Psalms are recited alternately in those Churches only where it may be reasonably presumed that the whole Congregation can read very few excepted For by the way this Method of reading the Psalms is not Commanded but every Parish Church is left at liberty to observe her own Custom about it In the Country Parishes the Minister generally recites all which way I do not think so convenient as that of Responsals for the Reason I gave before But there ought to be no breach amongst us about things of this Nature in which one way may perhaps be more convenient in one respect and the contrary more convenient in another and then we should not altogether dwell upon Considerations that favour our own opinion but attend also to those that may be offered for another and put the best construction upon it especially in favour of a Publick Rule or a received Custom This is more Christian-like and will be more for the honour of Religion and the good of other Mens Souls and for our own Comfort at last than to strain our utmost Wit to find faults with and to aggravate Inconveniences against the Laws or Usages of the Church where we live This that I am now speaking of is not a Law imposed on all the Churches of our National Communion but a Custom of some of them which I thought good to desend that they who think not so highly well of it as I do may not yet break Communion with those that use it And I hope our Brethren who grant the People are not to be excluded from Vocal Praise will consider that there is no inconvenience in uttering the Psalms by Responsals but that which is pretended concerning the difficulty to understand what is said And that there is very little reason for this pretence seeing the Psalms are the most known parts in the Bible and that if those few who cannot read will be careful they may reap great benefit by attending to the Congregation as some have done till themselves have been able to recite the Psalms 2. If they grant it Lawful and Expedient that the People should joyn in Vocal Praise I cannot see how they can Dispute the lawfulness or expedience of their joyning with the Minister sometimes in Vocal Prayer It will not be easie to shew a Reason why this should be disallowed if that be allowed If it be said there is some Example and Warrant in the Scripture for the one but not for the other it seems to be a good answer that there is such a parity of reason as that the express warrant of the Scripture for one is an implied warrant for the other Unless a Man will say that Nothing must be done in Gods Worship for which there is not express and particular Warrant which though a Man may say when he is opposing a way of Worship which he likes not yet he will not say it when he comes to defend his own It is a Principle that no Man will stand by though sometimes he may take it up to serve a turn The truth is the Scripture does not pretend to give us a perfect account of the Order and Manner of the Solemn Worship of God either in the Synagogues of the Jews or in the Churches of Christians nor to prescribe a Form for the Service of God by the Church in after times Several things were done in the Religious Assemblies of Christians first of all that were peculiar to the extraordinary effusion of the Spirit in those times and several that were fit enough for the conduct of God's Service when Miracles should cease and of both sorts some are intimated in St. Paul's two Epistles to the Corinthians but no Man that understands these things will say that they are all intimated there or any where else in the New Testament And therefore it does not follow that they did not observe in their Worship this or that Custom from hence that we do not find it written that they observed it We do not read that the Lords Prayer was used in the time of the Apostles but I suppose they are very few who will therefore make a question whether it was used or not We are able to shew that the Peoples joyning in Vocal Prayer with the Minister was very anciently practised In imitation of the way of the Christians Julian the Apostate appointed a Form of Prayer for the Heathen to be recited in Parts which shews that this was a known Custom Naz. Orat. 3. of the Church in those days and that it had been generally practised before And if this was the Primitive way it is more probable that it
comparatively few but you much doubt whether the use of those few was long before Popery appeared in the world unless he means Popery at its full growth for that Mystery of Iniquity as to Rituals began to work very early To this I answer that the Papists may con you great thanks for this passage it plainly enough intimating that the Primitive Fathers and Christians were for the most part Papists though not fully grown Papists And as to those words of St. Paul The Mystery of iniquity doth already work if you can do any thing like proving that the Apostle meant by the Mystery of iniquity which began to work in his days the use of such Rites as those you are offended with in our Church I will engage for our Author that he shall immediately set up for a Nonconformist You say in your Third Page that you cannot well understand how our Author saith that our Church doth not impose her Rites as necessary unless he means as necessary in order to Salvation c. But doth he not expresly tell you what he means by necessary you found he did if you read the whole Sentence which runs thus pag. 4. And she imposeth her Rites not as the Church of Rome does her's as necessary and as parts of Religion but as merely indifferent and changeable things as we find in her 34th Article c. And why Sir did you conceal this part of the Sentence and thus stop at a Comma You thus proceed Nor do I well understand how they are not made necessary to Salvation when the non-observance of them is made sinfull and meritorious of a being cast out of the Church c. And I assure you that I do as little understand if this be good arguing how whatsoever the King commands of his Subjects or a Master of his Servants is not made by them necessary to Salvation since the non-observance of the Lawfull Commands of each is acknowledged to be sinfull by all that believe these Precepts binding viz. Submit your selves to every Ordinance of man for the Lord's sake c. And Servants obey in all things your Masters c. And as to the Penalty you mention of being cast out of the Church and cut off from the Body of Christ which is the same thing it amounts to thus much That those who will by no means be prevailed with to conform to the Laws of the Society of which they are Members shall be cast out of it which all Societies and Bodies Politique whatsoever have ever thought fit to have inflicted upon obstinate Transgressors of their Laws in order to the preservation of themselves and the upholding of Government amongst them And our Author I am certain will readily grant that none but Obstinate Transgressors of the Churches Laws and such as are incorrigible by all other means first tryed oughâ— to be cast out of the Church and that the Sentence of Excommunication should never be pronounced against them but as the last Remedy As also that the design thereof ought always to be the Reformation of the Offender as well as for example to others never his Destruction But how does this Penalty's being made the Sanction of the Laws of our Church which ordain Rites and Ceremonies for Order's sake and the decent administration of Divine Worship in Publique speak these to be enjoyned as necessary to Salvation when the non-observance of any of them is no otherwise judged to be sinfull than as it is an Act of disobedience to Humane Authority and when this Penalty is never according to the Rules of our Church to be inflicted but in case of the Offender's adding contempt to his disobedience If any instances can be given of persons being Excommunicated upon the account of Nonconformity who are humble and modest and peaceable and that give good evidence of their willingness to comply with the Laws of their Governours as far as they are able with safe consciences this I am sure is wholly the fault of Persons not of our Constitution But this Objection is too inconsiderable to deserve our bestowing so many words upon it All that follows to the bottom of your Fifth Page wherein our Author is concerned hath been replied to And there you thus speak As in England we have a Silent and a Speaking Law so we have also a Silent and a Speaking Church c. We know the Doctrine of the Church of England in the 39 Articles but this is but Ecclesia Muta How many have we that will tell us We are Ecclesia Loquens the Living Church of England and we tell you c. Here follow no fewer than thirteen Doctrines taught by this Ecclesia Loquens contradictory to the 39 Articles But 1. You have given us we thank you the very first information of this Ecclesia Loquens But why do you expect unless we knew you better that we should take your bare word for it Nay we have hardly that for you do not in express terms affirm but ask this Question How many have we that will tell us we are Ecclesia Loquens And therefore it might suffice to give you onely this short answer Do you tell us how many or whether there are any if you know Surely this Church of yours is an Invisible Church or if not none but Dissenters Eyes are clear enough to get the least glympse of it But the truth of it is 't is a mere Figment and the very Dream of a Shadow But 2. Whereas a Positive Assertion of the being of such a Church of England is implied in this Question you cannot well be otherwise understood than as asserting that the Prevailing party of our Church of England Divines have obtruded upon the World this long Beadroll of Heresies as Articles of Faith and so have turned the Old Church of England out of doors And therefore you are brought to this miserable pass that you cannot hold Communion with this New Church except you will separate from and bid adieu to the Old And in good earnest if this be so Dissenters are the onely true Friends of the Church of England as by Law Established and this Church is hugely obliged to them for their Separation But 3. I am well assured that you will never be able to make good this charge or any part of it against any number of the Divines of our Church For I who know I am confident as many of them as most men in England can truly declare as followeth That I cannot name any one Divine of our Church who teacheth your First contradictory Doctrine to the 39 Articles viz. That although we may not terminate our worship in an Image yet we may bow down and worship the true God before an Image Nor your Second viz. That departed Saints know our states here upon Earth and are praying to God for us and therefore we may pray to them Nor know I any one of our Church who teacheth your Third viz. That any Priest may
the Governed who could never part with their Right in chusing Officers c. But what Right they have you will soon learn from the Reverend Dean Stillingfleet in his Vnreasonableness of Separation pag. 307 c. There you will find they have no Right at all or I am much mistaken From what you say in these two Pages and that which follows in which your discourse is such that 't is hard to say certainly what you would be at I shrewdly conjecture that you believe it Lawfull to separate from the Church of England although she had neither Ceremonies nor Liturgy to scare men away Your Second case is When a Church is turned Idolatrous that then it is necessary to depart from it And here we have no Controversie Your Third is When a Church will not admit a man's abiding in it unless he will doe something which his Conscience tells him is sinfull But Sir will you not acknowledge that it cannot justifie our Separation that something is required which we judge sinfull whilst we will not impartially use all means for the duly informing of our judgments whilst we call it a running into Temptation to read what is offered us in Defence of the Lawfulness of that we have a prejudice against Whilst we so confide in our own judgments or in the judgments of our Party as not to bear to hear that 't is possible we should be mistaken Surely all truly good men will acknowledge this You say in all these Cases Separating is Lawfull if not Necessary For in the two first Cases we ought to Separate And then I hope in those cases it is Necessary and not onely Lawfull to Separate in the last we may prudently and warily depart c. And why do you so mince the matter by changing your phrase when your meaning is that you may Separate And why do you so mince it too in saying in the two first Cases we ought to Separate which supposeth that in this Case you are at your Liberty and that though you may lawfully Separate yet it is not a necessary duty so to doe And why again do you say we judge this no sinfull Separation Why don't you speak out and say 't is a Necessary one Except you think that a man may lawfully act against his Conscience But you have given me sufficient assurance in your Book that this you do not think You say pag. 33. If any others in former Ages or in our own have had any other apprehensions of the significancy you would have said signification of the Terms Church Schism and Separation whom we own to have been Holy and Excellent men till we see their Notions justified from Holy Writ which alone can determine these things we must crave leave to dissent from them and believe that had they lived in our times they would have dissented from their own Apprehensions under a more perfect light c. But 1. What would you have said to us if we had given this Answer to your citing Holy and Excellent men such as Calvin whom our Author hath so often appealed to in his Book and others against our Notions I am sure you would have severely upbraided us with having a wonderfull opinion of our own judgments Especially if our Notions ran counter to all Antiquity and the Judgments of all Holy Excellent men in former Ages and to the generality of such in our own Age and Time But this I dare say may be asserted of your Notions concerning the Terms Schism and Separation and much of your talk concerning the Term Church too 2. How came you to have more light than the Holy and Excellent men in former Ages and in our own Age too which you plainly suppose your selves to have Nay you suppose this as to multitudes of such persons also as are your Contemporaries For you say pag. 7. We are far from thinking that there are not multitudes of Holy and Learned men in our Ecclesia Loquens c. that is Among Conformable Divines of the Church of England 3. This Answer would far better become the Quakers than you they pretending to inspiration which you do not I will now conclude with a Remarque or two on those words with which you begin the concluding part of your Book You say pag. 29. And now how happy should we not onely think our selves but indeed be would our Brethren but leave disputing how far it is lawfull for the Spouse of Christ to have Communion with the Great Whore and onely argue how far we come short of symbolizing with the First and Purest Gospel Churches of which we have Records in Holy Writ To this I say 1. How Unaccountable is this Charge you lay against your Brethren when you know that they are in as perfect a Separation as your selves from the Communion of that Apostate Church which you mean by the Great WHORE 2. It lieth not in your power to shew us a Church which more symbolizeth with the First and Purest Gospel Churches than the Church of England And as for those Churches which you believe do come nearer to the First and Purest it hath often enough been demonstrated with invincible strength that the main thing viz. the point of Government in which you conceive they more agree with these Churches doth speak them far less to agree with them than the Church of England does And speaks them to be therein unlike to the whole Catholique Church of Christ for fifteen hundred years together from the time of the Apostles We do not pretend that the Constitution of our Church is absolutely perfect we do believe that such a Constitution is the peculiar privilege of the Church Triumphant but we bless God that 't is no more imperfect and we who live in complete Communion with this Church are well assured that there is nothing either in the Constitution thereof or in what is required thereby that hindereth us from being as good Christians as ever were in the world We cannot find after all the pains that you and others have taken to prove the contrary that there is imposed upon us any one condition of Communion that does contradict any Law of God that tends in the least to the depraving of our Souls to the gratifying of any one corrupt Affection or the making us unmeet for the Heavenly Happiness And this our Holy Martyrs thought as well as we And gave a Demonstration hereof by their Excellent Lives and Heroick Behaviour under the greatest Torments they not onely patiently but also joyfully enduring them for the sake of Christ Nor do we find any more than they did that we are debarred by our Church of any Helps for the building of us up in our most holy faith And whereas you express such mighty zeal for Purer Ordinances we think that zeal would be much better employed in endeavouring after Purer Hearts And that this contending with your Superiours and your Brethren about some things enjoined hath been infinitely more
Jewish Church Or if in a short History of their Mission and Undertaking we should have read that they Circumcised and Baptized as many Proselytes as gladly received their word would this have been an Argument that they did not also Circumcise and Baptize the Infants of those believing Proselytes according to the Laws and Usages of their Mother-Church No certainly such a Commission to Proselyte Strangers to the Jewish Religion could not in reason have been strained to prejudice the customary right of Infants to Circumcision and Baptism and therefore in parity of reason neither could the Apostles so understand their Commission without other Notices as to exclude Infants from Sacramental Initiation into the Church The plain truth is their Commission was a direction how they should proselyte Strangers to Christianity according to the nature of propagating a new Religion in strange Countries as it is set forth by the Apostle Rom. 20. 14. How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed And how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard And how shall they hear without a Preacher And how shall they Preach unless they be sent Accordingly they were sent out to Preach or to Disciple Men and Women by Preaching and to Baptize as many of them as should upon their Preaching Believe and Repent But though the Order of Nature required that they should proceed in this Method with grown Persons as the Jews were wont to do with Proselytes to the Law yet it did not hinder that they who had been born and bred Jews should initiate the Infants of such Proselyted Persons according to the usage of the Jewish Church What need Christ have said more unto them when he sent them out than to bid them Go and teach all Nations Baptizing them in the Name of the Father c. Or to Preach the Gospel to every Creature and tell them that he that would believe the Gospel and be Baptized should be saved But then the respective sence of these words could only concern adult Persons and their qualification for Baptism but could in no reason be construed by them to exclude Infants but only unbelieving Men and Women whereof none were to be admitted into the Church by Baptism before they were taught Christianity and had confessed their Faith and Sins Should God as I said before call twelve Men of any Church where Infant-Baptism had been the constant and undoubted practice and bid them go and Preach the Gospel in the Indies to every creature and to say He that believeth the Doctrine which we Preach and is Baptized with the Baptism which we Administer shall be Saved I appeal to any Dissenter upon the account of Infant-Baptism whether he thinks that these Men bred up to the practice of Infant-Baptism could in probability so interpret this Commission as to think that it was God's intention that they should exclude the Infants of believing Proselytes from Baptismal admission into the Church The Professors against Infant-Baptism put the greatest stress upon these words of our Saviour He that believeth and is baptized shall be Saved But if they would well consider the next words they would find that Infants are not at all concerned in them because it follows but he that believeth not shall be Damned 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 with the * * * The Petrobusians vid. Cassandri praefat ad Duc. Jul. Cli. praefat advers Anabaptistas Original Anabaptists that the same incapacity of believing which excludes them from Baptism excludes them from Salvation too Wherefore it is plain that the believing and not believing in that Text is only to be understood of such as are in capacity of hearing and believing the Gospel that is of grown Persons just as the words in Joh. 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 Thus far have I proceeded to shew how inconclusively and absurdly the Anabaptists go about to prove that Infants ought to be excluded from Baptism from the fore-mentioned Texts which speak of the Order of Proselyting grown Persons and their Qualifications for Baptism and as little success have they with some others which they bring to shew how unprofitable Baptism is for Infants as that in 1 Pet. 3. 21. Where the Apostle tells us that external Baptism of putting away the filth of the Flesh of which Infants are only capable signifies nothing but the answer of a good Conscience towards God of which say they Infants are altogether uncapable to which the answer is very easie that another Apostle tells us that external Circumcision of which Infants were only capable profited nothing without keeping the Law which Infants could not keep nay that the outward Circumcision of which Infants were only capable was nothing but that the inward Circumcision of the heart and in the spirit was the true Circumcision and yet Infants remaining Infants were utterly uncapable of that so that their way of arguing from this and such like Texts proves nothing because it proves too much and stretches the words of the Apostles unto undue consequences beyond their just Meaning which was only to let both Jews and Christians know that there was no resting in external Circumcision or Baptism but not that their Infants were unprofitably Circumcised and Baptized So weak and unconcluding are all the Arguments by which the Anabaptists endeavour from Scripture to prove that Christ hath limited the Subject of Baptism unto grown Persons put them all together they do not amount to any tolerable degree of probability much less unto a presumption especially if they be put in the ballance against the early and universal practice of the Catholick Church Had not the Church been always in possession of this practice or could any time be shewed on this side the Apostles when it began Nay could it be proved 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 should suspect that their Arguments are better than really they 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 no body knows when or where it began or how from not being it came to be the practice of the Church since there was never any Church Antient or Modern which did not practise it it must argue a strange partiality to think that it could be any thing less than an Apostolical Practice and Tradition or the Original use of Baptism in its full Latitude under the Gospel which it had under the Law Had the * * * Ecquid verisimise est tot
Indian Church in Coulan and Crangonor and about Maliapur Planted by St. Thomas both which practice Infant-Baptism tho in all probability they never had it one from the other or both from any third Church It is very incredible that God should suffer all Churches in all the Parts of the World to fall into one and the same Practice which certainly is a Church-destroying Practice if the Apostles and their Assistants did not Baptize Infants but only grown Persons One may easily imagine that God might suffer all Churches to fall into such an harmless Practise as that of Infant-Communion or that the Fathers of the Church might comply with the Religious fondness of the People in bringing their Children to the Sacrament as we do with bringing them to Prayers but that God should let them all not preserving any one for a Monument of Apostolical Purity fall into a Practice which destroys the Being of the Church is at least a thousand times more Incredible than that the Apostles without a Prohibition from Christ to the contrary and no such Prohibition is Extant in the New Testament should Baptize Infants according to the Practise of the Jewish Church But in the fourth Place what Account can rationally be given why the Jewish Christians who were offended at the neglect of Circumcision should not have been much more offended if the Apostles had refused to initiate Children under the New Testament which had always been initiated under the Old Is it reasonable to believe that those who complained so much meerly because the Apostles Taught the Jews which lived among the Gentiles that they should not Circumcise their Children would not have complained much more if they had not Baptized them but quite excluded them like the Infants of Unbelievers from Admission into the Church It must in all probability have galled them very much to see their Children Treated like the Children of meer Strangers and to have had no visible difference put between the Infants of those that Embraced and those that resisted the Faith For they always looked upon Pagan Children as Common and Unclean but upon their own as Separate and Holy and St. Paul makes the same distinction between them 1 Cor. 7. 14. But had the Apostles taught that the Children of those who were in Covenant with God had no more right unto Baptismal Initiation than the Children of Idolaters who were out of the Covenant they had Taught a Doctrine which certainly would have offended them more than all they Preached against Circumcision and keeping the Ceremonial Law Wherefore since we never read among their many Complaints upon the alteration of the Jews Customs that they complained of their Childrens not being initiated by Baptism it is a greater presumption that the Apostles and their Assistants Baptized their Children then the want of an Express Example of Infant-Baptism in the New Testament is that they Baptized them not Having now shewed first that Infants are not uncapable of Baptism Secondly That they are not excluded from it by Christ but that on the contrary we have very convincing Reasons to presume that the Baptism of Infants as well as of grown Persons was intended by him Let us now proceed to make a fair and impartial enquiry upon the Third Question Quest III. Whether it is lawful to separate from a Church which appointeth Infants to be Baptized And this considering what I have said upon the former Questions must be determined in the Negative Whether we consider Infant-Baptism only as a thing lawful and allowable or as a Thing highly requisite or necessary to be done I know very well that my Adversaries in this Controversie will be apt to deny this distinction betwixt Lawful and Necessary as acknowledging nothing in Religious matters to be lawful but what is necessary according to that common Principle imbibed by all sorts of Dissenters That nothing is to be appointed in Religious matters but what is commanded by some Precept or directed unto by some special Example in the Word of God Hence they ordinarily say Can you shew us any Precept or Example for Baptizing Infants in the New Testament if you can we will grant that the appointment of it is lawful but if you cannot we disallow it as unlawful nay as an Usurpation and will never be of a Church which so Usurpeth it over the Consciences of Men. This way of Arguing is plausible to the Vulgar and would be very good were there such a Principle in the Scripture as this from whence they Argue viz. That nothing is to be appointed in Religious matters but what is warranted by Precept or Example in the Word of God Wherefore as the Men with whom I have to deal in this Controversie are generally Persons of good natural Understandings So in the First place I beg them to consider that there is no such Rule in the Scripture as this and therefore those who teach it for a Scripture-rule or Precept do themselves impose upon Mens Consciences as bad as Papists and like them and the Pharisees of old teach the Traditions of Men for Doctrines of God On the contrary the Gospel tells us that Sin is the Transgression of a Law and that where there is no Law there is no Transgression and according to this plain and intelligible Rule though the Baptizing of Infants were not commanded in the Scriptures yet the Church would have Power and Authority to appoint it upon supposition that it is not forbid Secondly I desire them to consider the absurdity of this pretended Scripture-rule in that it takes away the distinction betwixt barely lawful or allowable and necessary and leaves no Negative mean betwixt necessary and sinful but makes things forbidden and things not commanded to be the very same Thirdly I desire them to consider what a slavish Principle this is and how inconsistent it is with the free and manly nature of the Christian Religion under which we should be in a far more servile and Childish condition then the Jews were under the Law which as it is evident from the Feast of Purim and from the Institution of Baptism among the Jews allowed private Persons to practice and the Church to appoint things of a Religious nature which God had not commanded to be done Lastly I entreat them to consider how utterly impracticable this pretended Principle is as might be proved from the contrary Practice of all those who advance it against Ecclesiastical Authority and particularly from their own Practice in Baptizing grown Persons who were bred up from Infants in the Christian Religion and in admitting Women to the Lords-Supper who were not admitted to the Passover nor Paschal-cup of Blessing without any Precept or President for so doing in the Word of God This little well considered is enough to obviate all Objections against my first Assertion viz. That it is not lawful to separate from a Church which appointeth Infants to be Baptized upon supposition that Infant-Baptism is barely lawful and
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
a Table for us and set before us the bread of life we will not come and feed upon it with joy and thankfulness THE END A Catalogue of Books and Sermons Writ by the Reverend Dr. Tillotson Dean of Canterbury Viz. 1 SErmons Preached upon several Occasions in two Volumes in Octavo 2. The Rule of Faith c. 3. A Sermon Preached on the 5th of November 1678. at St. Margarets Westminster before the Honourable House of Commons upon St. Luke 9. 55 56. But he turned and rebuked them and said ye know not what manner of Spirit ye are of For the Son of man is not come to destroy mens lives but to save them 4. A Sermon Preached at the first General Meeting of the Gentlemen and others in and near London who were Born within the County of York Upon John 13. 34 35. A new Commandment I give unto you that ye love one another c. 5. A Sermon Preached before the King at White-hall April 4th 1679 upon 1 John 4. 1. Beloved believe not every Spirit but try the Spirits whether they are of God c. 6. A Sermon Preached before the King at White-hall April 2d 1680 upon Joshua 24. 15. If it seem evil unto you to serve the Lord chuse ye this day whom ye will serve 7. The Lawfulness and Obligation of Oaths A Sermon Preached at the Assizes held at Kingstone upon Thames July 21. 1681 upon Heb. 6. 16. And an Oath for Confirmation is to them an end of all Strife 8. Sermon Preached at the Funeral of the Reverend Mr. Thomas Gouge November 4th 1681 with an account of his Life upon Luke 20. 37 38. Now that the Dead are raised even Moses shewed at the bush c. 9. A Persuasive to Frequent Communion in the Holy Sacrament of the Lord's Supper Preached in two Sermons upon 1 Cor. 11. 26 27 28. For as oft as ye eat this Bread and drink this Cup ye do shew the Lord's Death till he come c. 10. A Sermon Preached at the Funeral of the Reverend Benjamin Whichcot D. D. and Minister of St. Lawrence Jewry London May 24th 1683 upon 2 Cor. v. 6. Wherefore we are always confident knowing that whilst we are at home in the body we are absent from the Lord. Sold by Brabazon Aylmer at the Three Pigeons against the Royal Exchange in Cornhill and William Rogers at the Sun against St. Dunstan's Church in Fleetstreet Advertisement of Books THE Works of the Learned Dr. Isaac Barrow late Master of Trinity College in Cambridge Published by the Reverend Dr. Tillotson Dean of Canterbury in two Volumes in Folio The First containing Thirty two Sermons preached upon several Occasions an Exposition of the Lord's Prayer and the Decalogue a Learned Treatise of the Pope's Supremacy a Discourse concerning the Unity of the Church also some Account of the Life of the Authour with Alphabetical Tables The Second Volume containing Sermons and Expositions upon all the Apostles Creed with an Alphabetical Table and to which may be also added the Life of the Authour Sermons preached upon several Occasions by the Right Reverend Father in God John Wilkins D. D. and late Lord Bishop of Chester Never printed before Printed for William Rogers at the Sun against S. Dunstan's Church in Fleetstreet THE CASE OF KNEELING AT THE Holy Sacrament STATED RESOLVED PART I. Wherein these QUERIES are considered I. Whether Kneeling at the Sacrament be contrary to any express Command of Christ obliging to the observance of a different Gesture II. Whether Kneeling be not a Deviation from that example which our Lord set us at the first Institution III. Whether Kneeling be not Unsutable and Repugnant to the Nature of the Lord's Supper as being no Table-Gesture The Second EDITION LONDON Printed by J. C. and Freeman Collins for Fincham Gardiner at the White-Horse in Ludgate-street 1683. THE CASE Whether it be Lawful to receive the Holy Sacrament Kneeling THe Resolution of the most weighty and considerable Doubts which may in point of Conscience arise about this matter and do at present much influence the minds and practices of many honest and well-meaning Dissenters will depend upon the Resolution of these following Queries 1. Whether Kneeling in the Act of Receiving the Holy Sacrament according to the Law of the Land be not contrary to some express Law of Christ obliging to the observance of a different Posture 2. Whether Kneeling be not a deviation from that example which our Lord set us at the first Institution 3. Whether Kneeling be not altogether Unsutable and Repugnant to the nature of the Sacrament as being no Table-Gesture 4. Whether Kneeling Commanded in the Church of England be not contrary to the general Practice of the Church of Christ in the first and purest Ages 5. Whether it be Unlawful for us to receive Kneeling because this Gesture was first introduced by Idolaters and is still notoriously abused by the Papists to Idolatrous ends and purposes 1. Whether Kneeling in the Act of Receiving the Sacrament in Obedience to the Law of the Land be not a Transgression against some express Law of Christ which obliges us to observe another Gesture For satisfaction in this Point our onely recourse must be to the Holy Scriptures contained in the Books of the New Testament wherein the whole body of Divine Laws delivered and enacted by our Blessed Saviour are collected and recorded by the Holy Ghost And if there be any Command there extant concerning the use of any particular Gesture in the Act of Receiving the Lord's Supper we shall upon a diligent enquiry be sure to find it But before I give in my Answer I readily grant thus much by way of Preface Whatsoever is enjoyned and appointed by God to be prepetually used by all Christians throughout all Ages without any alteration that can never be nullified or altered by any Earthly Power or Authority whatsoever When once the Supreme Lawgiver and Governour of the World hath any ways signified and declared that such and such positive Laws shall be perpetually and unalterably observed then those Laws though in their own nature and with respect to the subject matter of them they be changeable must remain in full Force and can admit of no Change from the Laws of Men. It would be a piece of intolerable Pride and the most daring Presumption for any Earthly Prince any Council any Societie of Men whatsoever to oppose the known Will of the Soveraign Lord of Heaven and Earth In this Case nothing can take off the Force and Obligation of such Laws but the same Divine Authoritie which first passed them into Laws Thus much being granted and premised I return this Answer to the Question proposed God hath been so far from establishing the unalterable use of any particular Gesture in the Act of Receiving that among all the Sacred Records of his Will there is not any express Command to determine our practice one way or other We are left perfectly at our
will not Wash out For this in effect is Trampling upon and Vilifying of the Precious Blood of our Saviour and to detract from the Virtue and Merits of his Sacrifice and thereby render it weak and insufficient to save us Blindly therefore to follow the Example of Christ is a certain way to run into Error and Mischief We must then of necessity if we would follow him safely seek out for a plain Rule in the Word of God or guide our Selves by the Dictates of Reason and Prudence and either way is a sufficent Demonstration that a bare Example is not to be trusted to Those who urge the example of Christ for Sitting were somewhat ware of this namely that his example and those of his Apostles are not to be Imitated by us in all things and therefore they lay down this Gillesp against Cer. p. 339. for their Maxim and Guide We are bound to Imitate Christ and the commendable example of his Apostles in all things wherein it is not evident they had special reasons moving them thereunto which do not concern us But I would willingly be informed how we shall be ever able to know when they acted upon special reasons and what they were that we may know our Duty if a bare Example without any Rule obliges us And if we guide our selves by Scripture or Reason in this matter then they are the measures of the Example Besides if we are not to Imitate them in such things which they were moved to do upon special reasons which did not concern us then we are obliged to Imitate their examples in such things as they did upon general and common reasons which concern us as well as them or we are not obliged at all by any Example and if so then those reasons are our Rule to which we are to reduce their Examples Without we find some general or common Reason we have no Warrant according to their own Principle to follow their Examples and when such Reasons do appear then it 's not the example alone that obliges us but Reason that approves the Example To bring their own Rule to the case in Hand How do they know but our Lord was moved to Sit at the Sacrament by Special reasons drawn from that Time and Place from the Feast of the Passover to which that Gesture was peculiar How do they know but that our Lord might have used another Gesture if the Sacrament had been Instituted apart from the Passover The necessity of the time made the Jews Eat the Passover after one fashion in Egypt which afterward ceasing gave occasion to alter it in Canaan and how do we know but that our Lord complyed with the present necessity and that his Example if he did Sit was onely temporary and not designed for a Standing Law perpetually obliging to a like practice If Christ acted upon special reasons then we are not obliged by their own Rule and if he did not let them produce the reasons if they can which make this Example of Christ of general and perpetual use and to oblige all Christians to follow it When ever they do this I am sure they will expose their own Principle which they have built so much upon to the Scorn and Contempt of the World which is this That the bare example of Christ and good Gillesp 338. disp against Ceremo Men in Scripture are a compleat Rule and Sufficient Warrant for our Actions in such things as we have no Precept or Prohibition for in the Word of God That a Christians Duty in a great measure flows purely from Examples Recorded in the Word of God and not from the express Laws of God which he hath revealed to us 4. It 's absurd to talk of Christs Example apart from all Law and Rule and to make that alone a Principle of Duty distinct from the precepts of the Gospel because Christ himself all the while the World enjoyed the benefit of his example governed his actions by a Law For if we consider him as a Man like unto us in all things Sin onely excepted he was Born under the obligation of the Moral and Natural Law as a Jew under the Mosaick Law as the Messias sent of God into the World to compass the great Work of our Redemption which he had freely undertaken he still acted by Divine appointment and was under the Gospel-Law He came to fulfil all Righteousness and to teach us the whole Mind and Will of God and Exemplify to us what he taught and delivered That which made that bitter and deadly Cup which ended his Days relish with him was this consideration that it was a Cup given him by John 18. 11. his Father and the Drinking it was agreeable to his will and it was the comfort and support of his Soul a little before his Death that he had finished the Work that his Father had given him He frequently professed Joh. 17. 4. v. Mat. 11. 27. Luke 2. 49. Joh. 4. 34. Joh. 5. 30. 8 c. 28 29. Joh. 10. 25. Joh. 14. 24 31. Joh. 15. 10 15. in his life-time that he did as his Father gave him Commandment and that it was his great business and delight to do the will of his Father and many such expressions he used which may be consulted at leisure If therefore we onely look to his Example without considering the various Capacities and Relations he bare both towards God and towards us and the several Laws by which he stood bound which were the measures of his Actions we shall miserably mistake our way and bewilder our selves we shall Act like Fools when we do such things as he did pursuant to infinite Wisdom Thus to give but one instance if we should Subject our selves to the Law of Moses as he did for he fulfilled the Ceremonial Law which he came to abolish we should thereby frustrate the great Design of the Gospel and of our Saviours coming into the World And yet even this we are obliged to do if his Example alone be a sufficient Warrant for our Actions I have staid the longer upon this Head because so ill a use hath been made of Scripture-Examples and to shew how far forth we may safely steer by them I scarce know any one Doctrine so teeming and big with Error so Fatal to the Souls of private Persons and the Peace of Publick Societies both Civil and Ecclesiastical as that which teaches us to Learn and Derive our Duty from and to Judge of the Goodness and Badness of our Actions by the Examples of Christ and good Men over and above what we are obliged to do by the Precepts and Laws of the Gospel 3. They who urge the Example of Christ against Kneeling at the Sacrament as our Rule to which we ought to Conform do not follow it themselves Because the posture he Instituted the Sacrament in which they say was a Passover-Gesture was if so very different from that which they so earnestly plead for
Remark The pretence of their convenient usefulness would be no better Excuse on their behalf than was that Plea for sparing the best of the Antalekites Cattel that they might be a Sacrifice when God had devoted them to Destruction For if God as they say hath commanded that all such Things and Rites should be utterly abolished as were of mans devising and had been abused to Idolatry then the convenient usefulness of such Places and Things will never bear them out 4 If it be sinful to Kneel at the Sacrament because that Cesture hath been and is notoriously abused by Papists to idolatrous ends so also is Sitting which is contended for with so much shew of Zeal For the Pope himself sits in the Act of Receiving as was before noted and if any credit be to be given to a Doctor of the Church of Rome for the same reason which our Dissenters urge for Sitting viz. because the Apostles sate at the first Institution and Celebration of the Sacrament If any enquire why the Si quaeratur quare Dominus Papa Sedendo Communicat potest dici quod hoc sit in recordationem quod Beatus Petrus alii Apostoli sedendo Corpus Domini in Coena ultima acceperunt Alex. Hales Tract de Missa par 2. Quest 10. par 4. Pope Receives Sitting it may be rereplied that he useth that Gesture in remembrance of St. Peter and the o-other Apostles who Received the Body of our Lord at the last Supper Sitting To conclude If Kneeling be unlawful because it hath been abused to Idolatry then we must never Receive the Holy Sacrament For we must Receive in some convenient Posture such as Kneeling Sitting Discumbing Standing and yet every one of these either have been or is notoriously abused by Heathens and Papists to Idolatrous ends I have now finisht what I undertook and endeavoured all that in me lies to satisfie all honest and peaceable Dissenters that they may lawfully and innocently Kneel in the Act of Receiving the Holy Sacrament What Success this Discourse will have I know not but this I am sure of it is well meant and if it be read with the same Charity as it was written with an honest teachable mind a mind not pleased with its Scruples I hope by Gods blessing it will do some good in the World And really if any of our Dissenting Brethren shall Receive thus much satisfaction from what I have written That by Kneeling in the Act of Receiving they transgress no known Law of God nor act contrary to our blessed Saviours Example That they do nothing but what becomes them and is very sutable to the nature of the Lords Supper nothing but what is agreeable to the practice of the universal Church in the first and purest Ages I don't see what other Scruples about Kneeling should block up their way to the Lords Table and hinder them from communicating with us There are a sort of men I confess who separate from our Church upon whom I despair of doing good by any attempts of this nature and they are such whose Scruples arise from a vitious Principle not from the weakness of their understandings but the obstinacy of their wills not from a great fear of offending God which keeps pace with all their actions for such I have as tender a compassion as any man but from Humour Self-Conceit Affectation of popular Applause and the being thought the wiser and better men for finding fault with every thing enjoyned by lawful Authority and every thing that is written in defence of it Nor upon men whose Scruples against Government by Bishops the Liturgie and Rites of the Church arise not from their Consciences but their Stomachs from Pride and Ambition from private piques disappointments in the State from Hypocrisie and Interest when the more they rail and except against Ceremonies the better Trade they drive in the World From such as these I expect nothing but Contempt and Derision and that the Medicine will be turned into Poison For as a great man observes on Prov. 14. 6. He Lord Bacon Advan of Learn fol. p 230. that comes to seek after Knowledge with a mind to scorn and censure shall be sure to find matter enough for his Humour but no matter for his Instruction FINIS For Kneeling I never yet heard any thing yet to prove it unlawful If there be any thing it must be either some Word of God or the nature of the Ordinance which is supposed to be contradicted But 1 there is no Word of God for any Gesture nor against any Christ's Example can never be proved to oblige us more in this than in many other circumstances that are confessed not obligatory As that he delivered but to Ministers and but to a Family to Twelve and after Supper and on a Thursday-night and in an upper Room c. and his Gesture was not such a Sitting as ours And 2 for the nature of the Ordinance it is mixt and if it be lawful to take a Pardon from the King upon our Knees I know not what can make it unlawful to take a sealed Pardon from Christ by his Embassadour upon our Knees Mr. Baxter 's Christian Directory par 2. p. 111. Quest 3. §. 40. A DISCOURSE ABOUT Edification IN ANSWER TO A QUESTION Whether it is Lawful for any Man to forsake the Communion of the Church of England and go to the Separate Meetings because he can better Edifie there The Second EDITION LONDON Printed by J. C. and Freeman Collins for Fincham Gardiner at the White-Horse in Ludgate-street 1684. A DISCOURSE About EDIFICATION In Answer to a Question WHether it is lawful for any Man to forsake the Communion of the Church of England and go to the separate Meetings because he can better Edifie there Answer It is Unlawful To make this plain two things must be consider'd First What sort of Person this is who asks this Question Secondly What he means by Edification As to the Person he is suppos'd to be one that is fully satisfied that he may lawfully Communicate with the Church of England That there are no Terms of Communion put upon him but which he can comply withal with a good Conscience That there is nothing in it contrary to the Word of God natural Reason or plain Consequences fetcht from both or either And therefore he who thinks that there are some things unlawful in the Communion of the Church of England is not concern'd in the Question for he separates upon the Account of Unlawfulness and not Edification onely as is suppos'd in the Question Secondly By Edification is meant an Improvement of his Spiritual Condition in the full latitude whereinsoever it may truly consist whether in the Articles of his Faith which in the separate Congregations are better taught more clearly prov'd more fitly appli'd to his practice and to support his hopes of Heaven or whether in the Rules of Life which are there more exactly laid down and more
owned it at his Condemnation that perhaps he thought Colemans Tryal p. 101. Def. of his Answ to the Admonit p. 349. that Popery might come in if Liberty of Conscience had been granted And this is that which wise Arch-Bishop Whitgift long ago foresaw would come to pass when he told the Dissenters of those Days I am persuaded that Anti-Christ worketh effectually at this Day by our Stirs and Contentions whereby he hath and will more prevail against this Church of England then by any other means whatsoever And now upon the whole matter I desire our Dissenting Brethren to consider whether the orderly and truly Primitive Constitution of the Church of England or Innovation Schism and Separation be the likelier way to keep out Popery and do therefore Conjure them by all the Kindness which they pretend for the Protestant Religion heartily to join in Communion with us as which I believe humanely speaking to be if not the only at least the only safe and durable means of shutting Popery for ever out of Doors IX Ninthly We desire of them that if neither these nor any other Advices and Considerations can prevail with them they would at least cease to Reproach the Government for Reviving the Execution of the Laws about these matters I know it is very natural to Men to complain when any thing pinches them but then they ought to be so just as to consider whose fault it is that has brought it upon them The Laws in this case were framed with great Advice and upon dear bought Experience and every Nation in the World thinks it self obliged when no other ways will do it by Penalties to secure the Publick Peace Safety and Tranquility of the State though it may sometimes press hard in some particular Cases when Men through Fancy Humour Mistake or Design especially about little and as themselves confess indifferent matters shall endanger the Publick Welfare and by an ill Example expose the Reverence and Majesty of the Laws And yet notwithstanding all this and a great deal more that might be said we find them at every turn charging the Government for using them Cruelly and with the hardest Measure censuring their Superiours and speaking Evil of Dignities and this not only the Cry of the mean and common Sort but of their chiefest Leaders even to this Hour It being no hard matter but that I love not to exasperate to instance in several things that are no very good Arguments of that Obedient Patience which some of them so much pretend to It is far from my Temper to delight in Cruelty much more to plead for Severity to be used towards Dissenting Brethren and therefore should have said nothing in this Argument were it not necessary to Vindicate the Government which upon these occasions I have so often heard Blamed and Censured I would these Persons who complain so much would consider a while how their Predecessors were dealt with in the times of the good Queen Elizabeth which will appear either from the Laws then made or from the Proceedings then had against them The Laws then made against them were chiefly these In the First of the Queen An Act for the Vniformity of Common-Prayer c. wherein among other Clauses and Penalties it is provided That if any Person shall in any Playes Songs Rhimes or by other open Words declare or speak any thing in the derogation depraving or despising the Book of Common-Prayer or any thing therein contained being thereof lawfully convicted he shall forfeit for the first Offence an hundred for the second four hundred Marks for the Third all his Goods and Chattels and shall suffer Imprisonment during Life A Clause which had it been kept up in its due Life and Power our Liturgy and Divine Offices had been Treated with much more Respect and Reverence then I am sure they have met with especially of late In Her Fifth Year an Act was passed for the due Execution of the Writ de Excommunicato capiendo amongst others particularly levelled against such as refuse to receive the Holy Communion or to come to Divine Service as now commonly used in the Church of England with severe Penalties upon those that shall not yield up themselves to the same Writ Anno. 13. passed an Act of general Pardon but it was with an Exception of all those that had committed any Offence against the Act for the Vniformity of Common-Prayer or were Publishers of Seditious Books or Disturbers of Divine Service Anno 23. By an Act to retain the Queen's Majesty's Subjects in their due Obedience it is provided That every Person above the Age of Sixteen Years which shall not repair to some Church or usual place of Common-Prayer but forbear the same by the space of a Month shall for every such Moth forfeit Twenty Pounds Which Act was again Confirmed and Ratified by another in the 29th Year of Her Reign with many Clauses and Provisions for the better Execution of it And by the Act of the 35th of Her Reign If any Person so forbearing shall willingly joyn in or be present at any Assemblies Conventicles and Meetings under colour or pretence of any Exercise of Religion contrary to the Laws of the Realm such Person being lawfully Convicted shall be Imprisoned without Bail or Mainprize untill he Conform and if he do not that within Three Months he shall be obliged to Abjure the Realm and if refusing to Abjure or returning without Licence he shall be Adjudged a Felon and suffer as in case of Felony without benefit of Clergy Such were Her Laws and such also were Her Proceedings against those who faultered in their Conformity or began to Innovate in the Discipline of the Church and these Proceedings as quick and smart as any can be said to be against the Dissenters of this time Do they complain of their Ministers being Silenced now so they were then being deprived of their Benefices and Church-Preferments for their Inconformity Thus Sampson was turned out of his Deanry oâ— Christ-Church for refusing to Conform to the Orders and Ceremonies of the Church Cartwright the very Head of them Expelled the Colledge and deprived of the Lady Margarets Lecture Travers turned out from Preaching at the Temple with many more Suspended from the Ministry by the Queens Authority and the Approbation of the Bishops for not Subscribing to some new Rites and Ceremonies imposed upon them as appears from Beza's Letter to Bez. Epist 8. Bishop Grindal Anno 1566. Are any in Prison so they were then Benson Button Hallingham Cartwright Knewstubbs and many others some in the Marshalsey others in the White-Lion some in the Gatehouse others in the Counter or in the Clink or in Bridewel or in Newgate Poor Men miserably handled with Revilings Deprivations Imprisonments Banishments if we may believe what themselves tell us both in the First and Second Admonition And what is yet far beyond any thing which God be thanked our Dissenters can pretend to complain of
several of them lost their Lives Barrow and Greenwood were Executed for their Scandalous and Seditious Writings Penry and Vdal Indicted and Arraigned for Defaming the Queens Government in a Scandalous Book Written against the supposed Governours as they called them of the Church of England for which they were both Cast and Condemned to be Executed as Felons but Arch-Bishop Whitgift interposing they were Reprieved and Vdal suffered to Die as he did soon after in his Bed The truth is the wise and wary Queen beheld Schism growing on apace and needed not to be told what ill Influence it was like to have both upon Church and State and therefore Resolved to carry a Streight Hand as well over Puritanism on the one side as Popery on the other and in order hereunto She charged Arch-Bishop Whitgâ—ft Sir G. Paul Life of A. B. Whitgift Numb 53. p. 29. to be Vigilant and Careful to Reduce Ministers by their Subscription and Conformity to the setled Orders and Government Adding That She would have the Discipline of the Church of England formerly Established of all Men duly to be Observed without alteration of the least Ceremony But nothing more fully discovers her Judgment and Resolution in this matter then what She gave in Command to the Lord-Keeper-Puckering to tell the Parliament part of his Dr. Peirce New Discov against Mr. Baxt. 1659. Ch. 5. Sect. 12. p. 109. Speech Transcribed and Published some Years since from the Original Copy under his own Hand Writing by an Eminent Divine of this Church was as followeth And especially you are Commanded by Her Majesty to take heed that no Ear be given or Time afforded to the wearisome Sollicitations of those that commonly be called Puritanes wherewithall the late Parliaments have been exceedingly Importuned Which sort of Men whilst in the Giddiness of their Spirits they labour and strive to advance a new Eldership they do nothing else but disturb the good Repose of the Church and Common-wealth which is as well grounded for the Body of Religion it self and as well guided for the Discipline as any Realm that professeth the Truth And the same thing is already made good to the World by many of the Writings of Learned and Godly Men neither Answered nor Answerable by any of these new fangled Refiners And as the present Case standeth it may be doubted Whethey they or the Jesuits do offer more Danger or be more speedily to be repressed For albeit the Jesuits do impoison the Hearts of Her Majesties Subjects under a Pretext of Conscience to withdraw them from their Obedience due to her Majesty yet do the same but closely and only in privy Corners but these Men do both Publish in their Printed Books and Teach in all their Conventicles sundry Opinions not only dangerous to the well-setled Estate and Policy of the Realm but also much derogatory to Her Sacred Majesty and Her Crown as well by c. In all which Things however in many other Points they pretend to be at War with the Popish Jesuits yet by the Separation of themselves from the Unity of their Fellow-Subjects and by abusing the Sacred Authority and Majesty of their Prince they do both joyn and concur with the Jesuits in opening the Door and preparing the way to the Spanish Invasion that is Threatned against the Realm Thus far he by her Majesties most Royal Pleasure and Wise Direction as he there speaks To which let me add That the Speech took such effect that the Parliament passed the Act of 35th of Eliz. the Severest Act against Dissenters in the whole Body of our Laws And indeed so Jealous was the Queen of the least appearances of Innovation that Arch-Bishop Grindall only for giving too much encouragement to Prophesyings which were beheld as likely to prove Nurseries of Schism and Faction as indeed they did fell under Her Displeasure and was Sequestred from his Archiepiscopal Jurisdiction and though great intercession was made in his behalf yet could he never be restored to his Dying Day This was the State of things then and yet these were the Proceedings of those Days which our Dissenters at another time are wont so much to Magnifie and Extol nothing of late having been so much in their Mouth as the Wisdom and Prudence the Care and Diligence the Zeal and Piety of Good Queen Elizabeth I speak not this to cast any reflexion upon the Memory of that incomparable Princess whom we have all the reason in the World to own to have been the Glorious Instrument of Perfecting and Setling the Reformation in this Kingdom and whose Memory will be dear and pretious as long as the Protestant Name has a Being in England But I only take notice how extreamly partial People are and how apt to be prejudiced against the present Government under which they live and to be always Crying out That the former Days were better then these whereas supposing their Circumstances were really harder than they are and harder then those of the Puritans in former times yet they have no reason to accuse the Government of Rigor and Severity towards them if three Things be farther taken into Consideration First That the Dissenters of old especially the first Race of them were generally much more Modest and Peaceable then those of latter times more Conformable to the Laws less Turbulent and Offensive to the Government when they could not Conform as Ministers they yet did as private Christians and quietly acquiesced in their Suspension or Deprivation and as one truly says of them When they could not be Active without Sinning as they judged they could be passive without Murmuring They medled not with things without their Line nor mixt themselves with matters of State Declared that Kings have See a Book called The Protestation of the Kings Supremacy 1605. Numb 8 9. 11. power by the Law of God to make such Ecclesiastical Laws as tend to the good Ordering of the Churches in their Dominions that the Churches ought not to be Disobedient to any of their Laws that if any thing were Commanded contrary to the Word they ought not to resist the King therein but peaceably to forbear Disobedience and sue to him for Grace and Mercy and where that cannot be obtained meekly to submit themselves to the punishment They generally came to Church and did not run into Separate Congregations nay writ stoutly and smartly against those who began then to attempt a Separation But whether our Modern Dissenters have observed the same Course and be of this Spirit and Temper let the World judge yea let themselves be Judges in the Case Secondly Sad Experience of the Evil Consequences of Schism and Separation have made it necessary for the Government to take all just and lawful ways for preventing the like for the time to come Men first began to be dissatisfied with the Rites and Orders of the Church then discontented that they were not presently gratified with an Alteration Discontent brought on