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 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 likewise 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 Sence 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 Cas 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 me 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
doth well in obeying his Superiours in such an instance where their commands do so manifestly contradict the Laws of God that on the contrary we affirm the man is highly accountable to God for all such Actions that he doth though they were done purely in obedience to that Authority which God hath set over him and purely in compliance with this Principle we are now contending for viz. That in all Doubtful Cases it is most reasonable to govern our Actions by the Commands of our Superiours Far are we therefore from asserting That whatever our Governours do command the Subject is bound to perform so long as he only Doubts but is not perswaded of the unlawfulness of the thing commanded And that if there be any sin in the Action he that commands it is to answer for it and not he that obeys For we do believe that in matters where a mans Conscience is concerned every one is to be a Judge for himself and must answer for himself And therefore if our Superiours do command us to do an Action which their Superiour God Almighty hath forbid we are offenders if we do that Action as well as they in commanding it and that whether we do it Doubtingly or with a Perswasion of its Lawfulness But then these two things are always to be remembred First That this is true only in such Cases where as I said a man is bound to know that Gods Law hath forbid that Action which his Governours do command and it is either through his gross carelesness or some other worse Principle in him that he knows it not or is doubtful of it For wherever a man is innocently and inculpably Ignorant or Doubtful how the Law of God stands as to such a particular matter which Authority hath obliged him to as neither having means to come to 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 Superiors 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 Superiors 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 Use 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 Superiors 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 he 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 Unlawful 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 alway 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 Superious 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
with the fewest Absurdities and evil Consequences of all sorts and doth best serve all the Interests Spiritual and Temporal taken both together that a Wise and a Good Man can propose to himself I say if any man do mean this by the Safer side I do readily agree with him that it will for ever and in all Cases be a True and a Wise and a Good Rule nay I add the only one to a Doubting Conscience to follow the safer side But then in this sense of Safety the safer side and the more Reasonable is all one thing And consequently this Rule of following the safer side and that I before laid down of following the more Reasonable are the same in sense though differently expressed Only I think this latter way of expression is more plain and less liable to misconstruction and therefore I chose it But it is indifferent to me how Men word things so long as we agree in our Sense II. Having thus given an Account of the General Rule by which a man is to determine himself in Doubtful Cases I come now in the Second place to treat of the several Heads or Sorts of Doubtful Cases wherein a Mans Conscience is concerned and to make Application of this Rule to them and this it will be no hard matter to do admitting the Grounds we have before laid down There is no Doubt wherein Conscience is concerned but it will of necessity fall under one of these two Sorts It is either a Single Doubt or a Double one We call that a Single Doubt when a man doubts only on one side of the Action but is very well satisfied as to the other As for Instance he doubts concerning this or the other particular Action whether it be Lawful for him to do it But on the other side he hath no Doubt but is very well assured that he may Lawfully let it alone Or on the contrary he is very well satisfied that the Action is Lawful and that he may do it But he doubts whether Gods Law hath not made it a Duty so that he cannot Lawfully omit it This is that which we call a Single Doubt We call that a Double Doubt where a man doubts on both sides of an Action that is to say he doubts on one side whether he be not bound to do this Action Gods Law for any thing he knows made it a Duty But on the other side so is the Action circumstantiated with respect to him or he with respect to it that he doubts whether he be not bound to forbear the Action as it is now presented to him Gods Law having for any thing he knows forbid it So that he is at a loss what to do because he fears he may sin whether he doth the Action or doth it not I say it will be impossible to put any doubtful Case wherein a mans Conscience is concerned which will not fall under one of these two Heads I. Now as to the Case of a Single Doubt we may thus apply the General Rule That when a man doubts only on one side of an Action there it is more Reasonable to chuse that side of the Action concerning which he hath no Doubt than the other concerning which he Doubts supposing all other Considerations be equal And here comes in that famous Maxim which hath obtained both among Christians and Heathens Quod dubitas ne feceris which with the restriction I have now mentioned will for ever be good Advice in all Cases of this Nature It must needs be unreasonable to venture upon any Action where a man hath the least Fear or Suspicion that it is possible he may transgress some Law of God by it when it is in his power to Act without any Fear or Suspicion of that kind supposing all along this Consideration of the possibility of offending by this Action be not over-ballanced and so the Fear of it removed by other Considerations which the Circumstances of the Action do suggest Thus for Instance Here is a Man Doubts whether it be allowable in a Christian to drink a Health or put out Money to Interest or to go to Law as having conversed with such Men or such Books as do condemn these Practices and that not without some Colour from the Word of God. The man is not indeed so convinced by their Discourses as to have taken up any Opinion or Perswasion that these Practices are unlawful nor would he censure any man that uses them because he sees there are as Good Men and for any thing he knows as Good Arguments for the other side But he is not so clear in his judgment about these Points as to be able to pronounce any thing positively concerning them either way He cannot say that he believes them Lawful though he is not perswaded that they are unlawful which is the true state of a Doubting mind Now in these and all other such like Cases the Rule is plain That while a mans judgment continues thus in suspence it is more Reasonable for him to forbear these Practices For there is no pretence of obligation upon him from Gods Law to engage in any of them and why should he rashly throw himself into danger by venturing upon an Action concerning which he is uncertain whether it be Lawful or no He runs no hazard by forbearing these things but if he practise them he doth Thus far is right But then as I said this is always to be understood with this Proviso Caeteris paribus For if there should happen to be such other Considerations in the Action as have force enough to over-ballance this Consideration of Uncertainty 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 Usury so that he and his Family must in time starve unless they be maintain'd 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 Usury 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
Law of God than of observing that Law as well as we can though with much unworthiness I will only add this further with reference to this Particular of receiving the Sacrament Though I am far from encouraging any to approach to the Lords Table without due Qualifications or from extenuating any mans sin that comes unworthily unworthily I mean in the Scripture Sense of that word and not as it is understood by many melancholly scrupulous Persons Yet this I say That if Men did seriously consider what a sin it is to live without the Sacrament it being no other than living in an open affront to the express Institution of our Lord Jesus and a renouncing the Worship of God and the Communion of the Church in the great Instance of Christian Worship and Christian Communion And withal what dreadful Consequences they bring upon themselves hereby even the depriving themselves of the chief of those ordinary means which our Lord hath appointed for the obtaining Remission of sins and the Grace and Influence of his Holy Spirit I say if men did seriously consider these things they would not look upon it as so slight a matter voluntarily to Excommunicate themselves as to the partaking in this great Duty and Priviledge of Christians but what apprehensions soever they had of the sin and the danger of receiving unworthily they would for all that think it more sinful and more dangerous not to receive at all I have said enough in answer to this Objection from St. Paul perhaps too much considering how often these things have been said I will now go on with our Case In the Third place therefore let us suppose our Doubting Man for these or such like Reasons as we have given to have such a Sense of his 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 loosely 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 a count 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
pure Doubt about the Lawfulness or Unlawfulness 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 Consessor 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 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 Uncertain 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 Unlawful 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 bazard we run is of transgressing some Unknown Law of God some Law which doth no way appear to us all that we