of Good and Evil contained in the nature of some actions antecedent to any positive or express Law of God or man so doth it indispensably oblige to the practical observation thereof 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 This is that effect of the Law written in the Heart Rom. 2.15 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which cannot be blotted out by any abrogation without blotting out the reason that is the nature of man That which is in it self Evil cannot without contradiction become indifferent or lawful But that which is not restrained or forbidden by any binding Law must needs be lawful Therefore the opinion of Libertines and Antinomians affirming Christians under the Gospel to be discharged from the duty of Obedience to any Law or Command of God as such is not only false and heretical but also impossible to be true in as much as it imports a repugnancy to the nature both of God and man and all distinction of Good and Evil and withall it evacuates all pardon of sin by concluding an impossibility of committing it For where no Law is there can be no Transgression I conclude therefore that the duty of Obedience to the Moral Law is common to both Covenants And that when Saint Paul saith We are not under the Law but under Grace Rom. 6.15 his meaning cannot be that we are not under any Obligation of the Law but that we are not under the rigorous Exaction of the Law requiring perfect obedience without affording either pardon for any Offences against it or any sufficient aid of Grace to perform it Christians by the Covenant of Grace which now they are under are delivered from that desperate state which the Law leaves them in that are under it being relieved by a double Grace first of pardon of Sin upon Repentance and secondly of ability through the assistance of God's Spirit to yield such obedience to the Law as will be accepted And so to the Objection of the burthen of that Obedience which by the premisses hath been asserted necessary to Salvation I answer That God's accepting by the new Covenant Repentance joyned with Faith in Christ instead of perfect Obedience required in the old is a sufficienu abatement of the intolerableness of the old yoke and as ample a dispensation as could be afforded to Sinners to qualifie them for salvation which will further appear upon these Considerations 1. That Repentance supposing men to be sinners admitted by the Covenant of Grace for the Condition of Salvation affords a remedy for Sin and a capacity of Life to them that by the old Covenant are absolutely excluded from all hopes thereof 2. That Reformation of life and future obedience which Repentance signifies is not the same which the Law exacts that is not absolute and perfect without any manner of defect Not the not-sinning at all but the not wilfully and presumptuously sinning and abiding therein impenitently after the receiving * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the knowledge or acknowledgment of the truth Heb. 10.26 A sincere desire and faithful indeavour of obedience is accepted for Repentance which may consist with some such things as the Law condemns as sins of ignorance not affected sins of Infirmity and surreption Imperfection in the performance of duty sincerely indeavoured with many frailties which a Christian labours under and against but cannot perfectly overcome Such things as these although as transgressions of the pure and perfect Law of God they have the nature of sin yet by the tenor of the new Covenant and through the mercy of God in Christ the Mediator thereof they shall not be imputed to the penitent sinner that by a true Faith layes hold upon that Mediator So that there be some sins which do not make void the effect and benefit of Repentance but are consistent with the truth of it and a regenerate state But because it is difficult to determine precisely and exclusively what they are it concerns every true penitent to take as much heed as he can of all sin and not to presume of any indulgence for the least that can be avoided by him And whiles it is said that some kinds of sin are consistent with such a Repentance as is available to salvation it is implyed that others are not so and such are all gross wilful and presumptuous sins But 3. Neither do such sins as these after a man hath once truly repented exclude a sinner from the benefit of the Gospel But are still capable of the same remedie which is allowed for all sorts of sin which a man is found guilty of before his first Conversion Although such sins do evacuate the benefit of his former repentance so far as to render him uncapable of expecting or claiming the Remission of them thereby suspending his pardon for the present till he hath renewed his repentance or repaired the breach of it Herein consists the abundance of Gospel-grace and the benefit of repentance that it is never out-dated not being restrained to one general pardon as the Novatians heretically taught nor limited to any number of Repetitions There is no sin at any time unpardonable under the Condition of Repentance For that against the Holy Ghost is supposed to be so upon this account only that it excludes that Grace by which a man should be inabled to repent These three things relating to the doctrine of Repentance duly considered I conceive to be sufficient to answer the Objection before suggested Especially if that be added which I take to be agreeable to the doctrine of the Gospel viz That whosoever imbraceth this second Covenant shall be sufficiently inabled by the grace thereof that is by the Spirit of Christ that helps him though not to keep the whole Law exactly and perfectly without sin yet to do all things which by that Covenant are required of him to work out his own salvation This sufficiency of Grace I take to be supposed in the Exhortation of my Text and confirmed by the Reason that follows after it For it is God that worketh in you to will and to do of his good pleasure Of which afterward Thus far we have proceeded towards the resolution of that great Question What is to be done by him that desires to work out his own salvation from the distinct Answer of our blessed Saviour and two of his Apostles to the same Question Believe in the Lord Jesus saith Saint Paul Repent saith St. Peter Keep the Commandments saith our Saviour These three Answers comprehending whatever is required of a Christian in order to his salvation might suffice for a complete Answer to that Question But considering the infinite weight and moment of the Question some further Enlargement of the Answer from 3. or 4. selected Texts is not to be counted superfluous And the first of these additional Texts shall be that of the Apostle St. Peter urging the same Exhortation with that in our Text in other words 2 Pet. 1.5 And besides this giving all diligence add
prevent others doing of Evil. To omit a necessary Duty is a present certain Evil the Scandal that may be taken thereby is but accidental and contingent though it be probable Love both to God and our selves requires that if God must be dishonoured it should rather be by another than by a man's self Besides the omission of such Actions gives generally as great or a greater Scandal to others as it removes from some Were the Case so that a far greater Sin and Dishonour to God were like to be done by occasion of this Action than that Omission would be yet were we not allowed much less bound thus to prevent it Because there is no possible Consideration which can license much less oblige a man to Sin The least Sin is not to be done to prevent the greatest Q. 2. But what if the Action be only good and commendable and not absolutely commanded For such Actions I think may be admitted as well under the Gospel as in the Free-will Offerings and voluntary Vows under the Law without yielding the Doctrine of Supererogation If such Actions have an appearance of Evil to others whether are they to be omitted for that only Reason Answ If that Brother who is suspected to be scandalized by such an Action be truly weak that is uninstructed and not proud wilful or obstinate and if that Scandal cannot be sufficiently prevented by instruction and due means of rectifying his judgment I think the Action should for the present be omitted Because all Actions commanded in their kind are not alwaies necessary to be performed according to the common Rule 〈◊〉 the School concerning affirmative Precepts nâ— binding ad Semper that is at every time Indeed the general Precepts of Believing and Fearinâ— God and Loving Him and our Neighbours dâ— bind both semper and ad semper that is at aâ— times but then it is to the Habits not to the elicâ—â— much less imperate Acts of these Vertues that man is alwayes bound It is not necessary becauâ—â— not possible for a man alwayes to Elicit the Act of Faith Fear or Love but the Disposition aâ— Habits must never be wanting nor can be in good Christian And if Acts commanded mâ— for some Reasons be omitted at some times bâ— cause they bind not to all times then much mâ— may such Acts as being not commanded though good are not necessary at any time be omitted some time 2. Because as before was said â—â—ctions not only indifferent but good in themselves may become Evil by some Circumstances amongst which this may fall out to be one 3. Because the doing of such a good Action not commanded may bring more dishonour to God by the scandal of it than it will do honour by the doing of it And though we may not do the least Evil to prevent the greatest yet may we omit a less good when it is not commanded to promote a greater 4. Lastly that general Rule that God will have mercy and not Sacrifice may be applied to this Case where the Soul of my Brother is probably indangered by my voluntary Sacrifice But Q. 3. What if the Act that hath an appearance of Evil to Bretheren which are truly weak be barely lawful and indifferent in it self neither commanded nor yet good in its Nature or Kind but yet necessary for the preservation of a man's Life Liberty Estate or Credit and cannot be omitted without notable prejudice and hazard to a man's self in these Interests Whether is a man bound to redeem the Scandal of his Brethren with such hazard or prejudice to himself or his Family The Arguments producible for the affirmative in this Question are to be drawn 1. From the Consideration of God's Dishonour which by the Sin of another occasioned by this Act of mine will be procured 2. From the Debt of Charity to the Souls of our Neighbours For the glory of God and the salvation of our Bretheren ought to be preferred before any temporal Interest of our own Answ It is certainly true that the high regard which a man owes to these two things will oblige a Christian to do his indeavour to prevent the impeachment of them and therefore bind him to use such prudential means as he is able to prevent the danger of Sin in another which may be done without forbearing the Action which his necessity or just interest doth so much require Had the Corinthians for want of other Meat been in danger to have starved or by not eating this any otherwise hazarded their Lives I think they had not been absolutely bound to abstain by the Apostle's meaning in the Directions which here he gives them which do not suppose them under any such Extremity but only invited to the Meat In that Case of Danger I think To have protested against all respect and honour to the Idol might have acquitted them from the Scandal and made their eating that Meat in such a case lawful though the Apostle hath not expressed any such Exception because there was no occasion for it And though there were an express Apostolical Interdict against eating things offered to Idols Acts 15. which was one of the esteemed Precepts of Noah yet it appears by S. Paul's Discourses in the preceding Verses of this Chapter and elsewhere upon the same Theme that it was but a temporal or provisionâ— Edict not obliging beyond the necessity of thaâ— Case whereupon it was made And this I think iâ— the Warrant by which most Christians do not now hold themselves obliged by the same Edict to abstain from eating of Bloud or things made thereof which yet was observed in the Church for soâ—â— Centuries and forbidden by some Councils It is hard to think that another man's Erroâ—â— or weakness especially when a sufficient Remedy thereof is offered by me should restrain me of such use of my lawful liberty as is necessary to my own preservation If I were bound to redeem every accidental dishonour to God or hurt to my neighbour's souls by the loss of those benefits which Gods Providence affords me it would be scarce possible to enjoy them at all But for a conclusion to this point of Scandal the full and exact handling whereof agrees not with the model of a Sermon I shall only adde a short Inquiry into some of the reasons or causes whereby men are induced to imitate others in things against their own conscience the discovery whereof will be useful to resolve some questions in this case I shall name but two which are both grounded upon the mistake of the imitator Herein I shall take leave to borrow something both of sense D. H. H. and words from a late reverend Author who hath learnedly discoursed upon this Question 1. One reason whereby people are sometimes incouraged to do that which is against their own conscience is from their own mistake of the action or intention of him whom they imitate thinking him to do or intend that which he doth not Thus
of Faith we met withall before and if there were not some other of Repentance as easie it were scarce possible for men to perswade themselves they have repented of their Sins without any actual sincere reformation of their lives Or to believe that the last hour of their lives is time enough for this work when they know such a reformation is altogether impossible But I am not in this place to enter upon the common place of Repentance or to discourse 〈◊〉 the various acceptions of the word My design iâ— only to shew what that Repentance is which iâ— necessary to be wrought out in order to a man's salvation And that will be learned most compendiously from a remarkable Text of Saint Pauls 2 Cor. 7.10 For godly Sorrow worketh Repentance to Salvation never to be repented of Where it is first to be observed that the rise or spring of Repentance is * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Godly Sorrow or â— Sorrow according to God which inports first a due sight and sense oâ— Sin secondly a hearty sorrow for it as it relatâ— to God that is as it is a transgression of the Law of God and so injurious and offensive â— Him and not only as it is noxious or perilous â— our selves There may be a true Godly sorrow as well foâ— the sufferings as the sins of others But the sorrow which is apt to bring forth repentance is a sorrow for our own sins And two things there are in Sin which are the just matter and motive of a Godly sorrow 1. The nature of it 2. The effects and consequents of it 1 Joh. 3.4 Rom. 2.15 The proper nature of sin is the transgression of Gods Law whether written in the Bible or in the Heart The Effects of sin do referre either to God or to our Selves and our Brethren Those which respect God are his displeasure and his dishonour For all sin is both displeasing and dishonourable to God upon the same account because it is a transgression of his will Those which respect our selves are â—ll manner of evils privative and positive that may accrue to us from sin either by the nature or by the punishment thereof Now albeit these â—atter events of sin be just matter of sorrow â—nd that sorrow may also conduce to the effect of â—epentance yet is not this properly called Godly sorrow because it is not a sorrow for Gods cause so â—uch as for our own And the root of it is self-â—ove rather than the love of God I conclude â—herefore that the proper object and motive of â—odly sorrow is sin as sin considered with â—â—e event that necessarily proceeds from it as such â—â—z the dishonour of God with his just displeasure â—hich being the greatest evil in the world is the â—â—â—test matter of Sorrow The glory of God and his â—â—vour are the most desirable good things and â—â—ght to be the highest ends that we should proâ—ound to our selves and most to be rejoyced in â—nd therefore the contraries of these things his â—ishonour and his displeasure ought above all â—â—ings to be averted and grieved for And the â—â—rrow for sin upon these considerations is the â—ost Godly sorrow because it implies a love to God with a conversion of our wills unto his will from which by sin it had been averted This is thaâ— Sorrow which is signified by the Scholastiâ— term of Contrition the abstract of the concreâ— word so oft used in Scripture Contrite to expresse the disposition of a penitent heart Thâ— Latin word Poenitere and the English to Repeâ— do first and most properly signifie to be sorry â— a thing done amiss And the word Repentanâ— in Scripture doth sometimes signifie no more thâ— this But in this Text and all others where 〈◊〉 hath the promise of salvation or remission of â— annexed to it Repentance hath a further signifiâ— tion Which is The second thing to be observed from â— Apostle's words towards the rectification of meâ— judgments concerning the notion of Christian Râ—pentance which is available to Salvation viz. that is not a bare sorrow for sin though it be a goesorrow much less every kind of sorrow A nâ— may have sorrow for sin more than enough aâ— yet be as far from repentance to Salvation as Juâ— was who is expresly said to have repented hâ—self Matth. 27.3 His heart was desperately 〈◊〉 mortally wounded with the sense of his â— and sorrow for it But a godly forrow it was â— that brings forth repentance to Salvation but â— quite contrary the sorrow of the world that brâ— forth death Act. 1.25 and hastened his dispâ— to his own place where there a good store of such penitents weeping and waing and gnashing their teeth without dâ— for their sins that brought them thither Judâ— case was indeed very miserable if we consider a repentance wherein there seems to be a distinct example of all three parts of the Scholastical repentance As first such a deep Attrition as by the Pontifician Doctrin seemed to want nothing to have turned it into Contrition but Absolution which considering his free and particular Confession the second part of his Repentance I have sinned in betraying innocent blood and that joyned with a voluntary satisfaction the third part in his bringing again the thirty pieces of silver was unmercifully denied him by the chief Priests Matth. 27.3 4 5. But Judas his conscience could not be satisfied much less his sin discharged with all this repentance which yet was a great deal more than that which is commonly presumed to be sufficient For most people think if their consciences be pricked with the sense of their sins so that they can say they are sorry for them let it be upon what consideration it will they are truly penitent especially if this sorrow be but distinguished from that of Judas by a presumptuous hope and confidence of pardon And much more if they can but deceive themselves into a present sleight purpose of some amendment of their lives Then they think they are out of danger and may build upon the promise of the Gospel for a certain Pardon Whereas by the necessary sense of this Text it is perfectly evident that the most sincere sorrow for sin is not in it self a compleat repentance but a cause and a preparative to it For Godly sorrow worketh repentance But the cause and the effect cannot be the same thing nothing can produce it self But because Godly sorrow if it be right will work repentance therefore it may in some case where there is no time for any works to be brought forth be accepted for Repentance upon the same account by which the will is accepted for the deed when it is a sincere firm and ratified Will which God only can judg of and which it is scarce possible for any man to know of himself without some reasonable trial And therefore there is small comfort for any man in a repentance that hath proceeded no farther God may
a man hath broken the Law and therefore cannot be a direct and absolute precept of the Law I say a direct or absolute precept of the Law in its prime intention Repentance is not But a consequent hypothetical indirect precept it is of a second intention That is upon supposition a man hath once transgressed the Law he is implicitly bound by the same Law to repent as Repentance signifies a cessation from sin and a return to the duty of obedience Otherwise a man might be discharged from the obligation of the Law by breaking it Rom. 4. 1 Joh. 3. And then he that had sinned once could sin no more because where there is no Law there is no transgression But that Law that binds a man to perpetual obedience doth not only bind a man from sinning once but supposing that he hath done so it must needs oblige him to cease from continuing in his sin But properly and directly Repentance is a precept of the Gospel directed to the transgressors of the Law as a remedy for the breach of it and a condition of pardon not allowed by the Original Law And therefore it is not a precept only but a priviledg peculiar to the Gospel being a gracious dispensation and mitigation of the rigour of the Law Act. 11.18 God hath granted to the Gentiles repentance unto life That a sinner upon his repentance through Faith in a Mediator that hath expiated his sins should obtain remission of his sin and be discharged from the penalty of the Law is a new grant grace and priviledg of the second Covenant The difference therefore between the first and second Covenant lies not in the common sense of those general terms Do this and live as if the second Covenant required nothing at all to be done which is contrary to our Text and all those which have been alledged for the explication thereof but partly in the special signification of the Word this and partly in a gracious promise of Grace sufficient to enable a man to perform what ever is to be understood by that word this which cannot be so interpreted as to signifie the same thing in reference to both Covenants Because though something be required to be done as a Condition of the new Covenant as well as of the old yet not the same For something was required in the old which is not in the new and something is required in the new which was not in the old and something is required in both For instance The old Covenant indispensably required perfect innocence in an entire fulfilling the whole Law written in the heart of man or declared or to be declared by divine Revelations leaving no place for any such thing as Repentance to be admitted for a Remedy of Sin But this perfect Innocence is so far from being required in the new Covenant as the very Supposition of it prevents and destroyes the end and design of the New which imports a plain contradiction to such sinless innocence In as much as the new Covenant is nothing else but a Remedy provided by the grace of God for the want of such innocence Were it possible to perform the condition of the old Covenant the new could have no place because that supposeth a man a transgressor of the old And if now it were possible for any man to obey the whole Law without any new transgression yet he that is already a sinner Rom. 5.18 19. as all men are by the first transgression could not be saved by that Covenant because his being so renders him incapable of pleading performance of the Condition thereof This therefore is a main difference between the two Covenants The first exacts perfect Obedience and Innocence the second admits Repentance A second difference of these Covenants is in the first and principal Article of the new Covenant which is consigned upon the Condition of Faith in Jesus Christ as a Saviour to save us from our Sins Which also imports a plain Repugnance to the Condition of the first in as much as it implies a violation of it Faith in a Saviour to save us from our Sins could be no precept of the old Covenant because that doth neither declare nor admit any such Saviour These are two main things whereby the two Covenants are distinguished in their Conditions and it is not requisite in this place to name any more But with these Differences there is also something common to both and that is the general Obligation of Obedience to the Commandments according to the express words of our Saviour before alledged If thou wilt enter into Life keep the Commandments And this I take to be a duty of such necessity as could not be discharged or dispensed with by any positive Will or Covenant of God upon any Consideration whatsoever No not upon that of a most perfect satisfaction for the breach of the Law with an intire fulfilling of it by a Surety for and in the stead of the Transgressors I say that neither upon this nor any other Consideration the Duty of Obedience to the Moral Law of God could be discharged or dispensed with For these Reasons 1. Because such a discharge or dispensation is contrary to the Soveraignty of God which importeth an Authority to command all Creatures that are capable of receiving and obeying any commands This Authority being essential to the Divine Nature He cannot devest himself of by any positive Will no more than he can destroy his own Essence But to discharge a Creature capable of the duty of Obedience from all obligation thereunto were to put off that Authority because Where there is no obligation to obedience there can be no authority to command If therefore God should discharge a Creature of his duty of Obeying his Commands he should thereby quit his Soveraignty over that Creature which is altogether impossible 2. Because such a liberty granted to any part of mankind is contrary to the Justice and Holiness of God in as much as it implies a licence and toleration of the utmost wickedness that could be committed by them that had obtain'd this liberty For where there is no restraint put upon the wills of men by any binding law there must needs be the utmost of license 3. Because this Liberty is contrary to the nature of Man as he is a Reasonable Creature Because as he is reasonable he is capable of receiving Commands and Laws from his Creator and as he is a Creature he is naturally bound to be subject to them The relation of a Creature naturally importing such a debt of subjection to the Creator as can never be discharged 4. And lastly Because there are some Divine Laws which are in themselves indispensable to a reasonable Creature Such is that which is commonly called the Moral Law in the strictest sense signifying not all Precepts that concern the manners of men but the same thing with the Law of Nature and right Reason Which as it teacheth a distinction
Art of Logick or extraordinary perfection of Reason which they are not obliged to have In this Case the ignorance of those practicab Precepts so obscurely revealed in holy Scripture may be inculpable as I suppose 3. Where the ignorance is inculpable the doubt is so too 4. Inculpable ignorance as well concomitant as causal doth excuse the Act that is done with it though contrary to a Precept from sin not onely a tanto but à toto I use the term inculpable rather than invincible because it is more clear and less liable to cavil Nor are those terms equivalent For both some ignorance may be invincible in some circumstances which is not inculpable and some ignorance may be inculpable which is not simply invincible for to render ignorance inculpable it is not necessary that it was not to be prevented by any possible industry but it sufficeth that it doth not proceed from the neglect of any means that a man was bound to have used or from any other fault of the ignorant person Inculpable ignorance I say excuseth any action that is done with it from sin as well à tanto as à toto and as well when it is barely concomitant as when it is causal This conclusion is disagreeable to the ordinary resolution of the Schools and yet seems to be true upon this reason because inculpable ignorance barreth the Obligation of a positive law which cannot oblige till it be so promulged as obligeth all them that are to be bound by it to the knowledge thereof And though actual knowledge of a law be not necessary to the obligation of it yet promulgation is and that such as is sufficient to take off all excuse of ignorance and therefore to render it not inculpable And where there is no law actually obliging there can be no sin Therefore inculpable ignorance as well of the law as of the fact excuseth from sin and that not onely when that ignorance is a cause sine qua non of the action which a man would not do if he knew of the law but also when the ignorance doth onely accompany the action which a man would have done though he had known the Law The disposition of the will to do such an evil action though it were known to be so is indeed a sin but the action it self cannot be a sin whilst it is not forbidden to the Agent by any obliging law To apply these Propositions to the Question premised seeing all manner of doubt proceeds from ignorance and that ignorance may be inculpable and where the ignorance is inculpable so is the doubt and inculpable igrance of a law takes away the Obligation and therefore excuseth from sin it seems to follow that when a man is inculpably ignorant of any such law as forbids the action which he deliberates about he may act with perswasion concerning the lawfulness thereof to him Though he should have some reason to doubt whether such a Law may not be For whether there be or there be not if he be inculpably ignorant of it it obliges him not And therefore he is at libertie to act or forbear according to reason and may do either of Faith that is though he doubts upon some uncertain account not obliging his belief whether the action to be done be not forbidden by some Law of God yet if he be inculpably ignorant of the Law it doth not oblige him and therefore leaves him free till he be so far instructed as he can plead no inculpable ignorance As for Example Suppose the Law forbidding an action be no where in Scripture set forth expresly and the onely evidence thereof depends upon doubtful interpretations of Scripture or subtle consequences disputed and denyed by good and learned men of equal credit and not declared or determin'd by any Authoritie of the Church In this Case I being no competent judge of the Controversie may suppose myself inculpably ignorant of that Law as well as I am of other verities and points of belief that have no other or no better evidence of Scripture whilst yet pretensions of reasons not cogent together with the Opinions of Learned men may be sufficient to make me doubt as well of the uncertain Precepts as of other verities I inquire now whether notwithstanding this doubt I may not act in Faith that is believing it still lawful for me to do this action whether in it self it be forbidden or not forbidden because the Law whereby it is forbidden if it be so under this inculpable ignorance doth not yet oblige me and if I believe my self not obliged by a law I may act in Faith that is with perswasion that I am free whether my ignorance be in truth inculpable or not yet if I be perswaded that it is so its certain I may have the same perswasion concerning the lawfulness of the action that I do against no other law than that whereof I think my self inculpably ignorant It is true if my ignorance be not inculpable I shall sin in this action but shall notwithstanding act in Faith notwithstanding my doubt whilst that doubt is not whether it be lawful for me to do this action in this case of ignorance for that would impart a contradiction to my Faith or perswasion that it is but onely whether there be not some law forbidding the action in general and obliging all that know it or should know it but not obliging me as I suppose because I am as yet ignorant thereof and that as I believe inculpably But here it is to be considered that although it be certain by the express words of the Apostle That whatsoever is not of faith is sin yet it doth not follow that whatsoever is of faith is not sin For then St. Paul had not sinned whilst he persecuted the Church for he saith I verily thought with my self that I ought to do many things contrary to the name of Jesus Acts 26.9 And therefore though a man notwithstanding such a doubt as hath been declared may act in Faith which was the onely thing indeavoured to be proved yet it will not follow that he sins not except his ignorance be inculpable And if he onely believes that it is so he may likewise for that reason believe that it is no sin but can have no more certainly of the innocencie of his act than he hath of the inculpableness of his ignorance If this Hypothesis seem to destroy the second Principle before delivered with the resolutions of the Cases made upon it I answer 1. As before was intimated that that Principle in those indefinite termes wherein it is first laid down was taken up upon the common presumption of the universal truth of it and the respective resolutions supposing it were accordingly framed But 2. If that Principle be restrained as I understand it to such a doubt as is made not onely concerning the being of a positive Law but concerning the Obligation of it to me that is if I doubt whether the
Thou that makest thy boast of the Law through breaking the Law dishonourest thou God More particularly first by all such Actions as are evil in themselves or secondly by such as being good or indifferent in themselves are evilly performed in respect of the manner circumstances or ends of them or thirdly by such as have an appearance of evill 1. By such actions as are clearly evil in themselves in respect of the matter of them by all such actions God is dishonoured aswell such as are committed against our neighbour as such as are committed immediately against God himself whether the eidence of that evil proceeds from any written Word of God or only from the common Law of reason and humane understanding For that same Effect of the Law wittten in the heart Rom. 2.15 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which Saint Paul attributes to the Heathen being equally common to Christians doth equally bind them and cannot be superseded or made void by the knowledg of the Written Law which serves to perfect it So that whiles the defect of that Law in the heart is only supplied by the Word the Effect of it still remaines And if a Heathen shall be judged for things done by him only against the Law of reason his own conscience accusing him as the Apostle saith though he knows of no written Law of God against it then doubtless so shall a Christian be for all such Actions as he shall do against the same Law of his Reason and Conscience notwithstanding he either knows not or cannot remember any written word against it For this Ignorance as to such particular Actions is the same in both For although the Law of God which is written in the Scriptures be said to be perfect and thereupon is supposed to declare in the Latitude of it's Sense and the just Consequences thereof the whole Will of God that is his preceptive Will in whatsoever he requires or forbids men to do yet because this perfection of Sense with the Consequences is not perfectly understood by any man much less by all therefore may there be many things therein required and forbidden which will not from thence be particularly understood much less remembred at all times If therefore the Conscience of a man from clear light of Reason shall condemn any Action which he is any way tempted to do although he doth not remember any particular Text of Scripture whereby it is forbidden he is nevertheless bound to abstain from it by that Law written in the Heart and cited by the Conscience But to return to the matter in hand which is the Consideration of God's Dishonour in that which is done It is manifest that God is dishonoured only by such Actions as are contrary to his Will because no Act which is either agreeable to his Will by way of Command or Approbation or allowed by his Will by way of Permission can be dishonourable to him unless he can be supposed to command approve or allow of his own Dishonour From hence it follows that God is not dishonoured by any such Acts as are purely indifferent in their individual existence because that Dishonour imports a Contradiction to such an indifferency and so destroyes it For it cannot be indifferent to dishonour God But whether there be any such individual Acts as are absolutely indifferent is a disputable point which I may not here stand to examine But in general every Act of Transgression of the known Will of God is a manifest derogation to his Glory especially that of his Soveraign Authority And especially every presumptuous i. e. wilful Transgression for that imports a plain Contempt of God and his Authority Therefore by this Rule Christians are especially to be careful to abstain from all presumptuous Transgressions of God's Will which way soever made known unto them whether by the written Word or by the light of Reason as before was said Now those Actions are most apparently contrary to the Will of God which are evil in respect of the matter of them 2. But it is no less manifest that some Actions both which are indifferent and which are good in respect of the Matter of them may be evil in respect of the Manner Circumstances and Ends of their Doing as was said before and is too evident to need any proof only this may be added that as there are some kinds of Actions which cannot be made good or indifferent by any Circumstance whatsoever as to hate God to blaspheme or curse him to take his Name in vain by false Swearing c. which Actions certainly are evil not by any Arbitrary Law or Will of God but by their very Nature and this Evil such as no possible determination of God's Will can or could have acquitted them from So are there some Acts of the Soul especially which are so intrinsecally Good as that they cannot become Evil by any Circumstance or End that is consistent with their Being as to love God above all to reverence him to defire his Glory above all things c Yet I deny not but that even in such Actions as they are now performed by men in the flesh there is some Imperfection and that is an Evil but not such as denominates the Act to be so except we will say that it is impossible for the holiest man that can be to do any such good Act as is not a Sin And then it were indeed a vain Question to dispute Whether any single Act can be indifferent For if all such Acts as have any or the most goodness in them be Sins it were a great absurdity to imagine that those which being supposed indifferent have no Goodness in them should have no Evil for then it would be apparent that one Evidence at least of their not being Evil should be because they are not Good because by this Conclusion if they were Good they would be Evil. 3. God is dishonoured by such Actions as have an appearance of Evil and therefore by this Rule also Christians are to abstain from all appearance of Evil. This being the ground of that Precept of S. Paul 1 Thess 5.22 as it is rendred in our own and most other Translations For there is another possible Translation of the words which seems to be favor'd by the Syriack Translator and is accepted by some Interpreters viz. from all kind or sort of Evil 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ab omni specie mali But besides that this is a notable abatement of the sense of the Precept I doubt much whether the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 without Example else where in the New Testament or the Septuagint may be taken in such a Philosophical sense Certainly Christians ought to abstain not only from such things as are really Evil but also from all things that may give a Suspition or carry an appearance of Evil As for Instance we ought not only to abstain from Pride and Vain-glory from Covetousness Deceit Intemperance and all manner of Unchastness
as God that is with all the heart and all the soul anâ— all the might according to the tenour of the finâ— and great Commandement This kind of love is that which constitutes and distinguisheth thâ— true filial fear of God And that constant respect or regard to the glory of God which this Texâ— requires is not onely an inseparable concomitaâ—â— of such a Love but also an essential property thereof For as all vertuous love which the Philosopheâ— calls love of Friendship consists in affecting anâ— seeking the good of the beloved for his own sake So the true love of God must needs consist iâ— the secking of his honour and glory which is thâ— only good which is competible to him Anâ— therefore there is no way for us to testifie our low to God but this at least none wherein this is noâ— contained Therefore what ever pretences meâ— may make of love to God who have no sinceâ— affection for his glory can be no better than hypocritical And must needs appear so to the coâ—science of the pretender if he will consider thâ— the glory of God is the only Interest wherein 〈◊〉 is capable of being served For as we cannot profit God any way so neither can we please him any other way than by this of aiming at hi Glory or which is all one desiring to expres our respect to him That saying of the Apostle Love is the fulfilling of the Commandments is verified as well of the Commandments of the first table as of the second and doth truly import no less than that love to God as well as men doth confist in the keeping of his Commandements according to the words of Saint John This is the love of God that we keep his Commandments and the like of our Saviour's Joh. 4.3 Joh. 1â— 21 If ye love me keep my Commandments But this is not the entire meaning of the words but also that the right keeping of the Commandments is only that which proceeds from love to God so that were it possible for a man to keep all the Commandments without any other love than that which men have for themselves which must needs be impossible because to love God is not only one but the chief of the Commandments he could not truly pretend to have kept any of them at least not in the Gospel-sense that is in Spirit and truth To serve God in spirit and truth according to the Law of the Gospel and which I understand to be a main part of that Reformation under the Gospel which the Author to the Hebrews mentions is not only to serve him in the doing of such things as are good in themselves and as such distinguishable from the Ceremonial precepts of the Law but also to serve him in love for his own sake that is for his honour and glory This is it which distinguisheth the good actions of carnal and unregenerate men from those of the truly faithfull It is manifest by experience that not only carnal Christians but the most barbarous Infidels do many actions agreeable to the Law of God but in as much as no such person makes God the end of his actions those actions are not sincerely good nor so much as acts of Obedience to God who requires to be obeyed in Love Now as these two common Duties which expresse the whole service of God cannot be truly performed without the observation of this general precept in the Text so much less can that which is nothing else but the perfection of these that is the duty of holy Zeal for God For godly zeal can have no other proper design than the glory of God But I forbear to insist upon this or to add any other reasons for the confirming of the point because I shall have occasion by way of motive to mention the same again with others in the practical Application whereto I am now to proceed THe first general use which is to be made of all Pradical Doctrines such as this is is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that of Examination As oft as we read or hear of any duty required from God and generally incombent upon all Christians iâ— is the proper part of every mans Conscience to reflect upon it self by way of Examination whether that duty be or hath been observed anâ— performed by him This therefore is now to be don by us in reference to this general rule 〈◊〉 Christian practice Let every one of us consider and examine whether we have observed this rule or no in all our doings And for the assistance of any Conscience that may be perswaded to such a faithful Application I shall from the premisses already laid down draw up the Interrogatories which each man should charge upon himself to Answer 1. Whether hast thou had any such regard to the glory of God as to take heed of any doing thing which thou knowest to be contrary thereunto Hast thou been careful to act nothing disagreeable to his known Will Hast thou been so jealous and tender of his honour as not willingly or needlesly to do any thing which had any appearance of evil to thy self or to others who were like to be scandalized thereby Hast thou consecrated and devoted thy whole self and all the Interests of thy life in the desire and designe of thy heart to God and his glory Hast thou by a general proposition set God for the end of all thy doings Hast thou frequently minded considered and thought of the glory of God in thy doings and made it the rule by which thou hast ordered the matter and manner of them These Interrogatories being all drawn out of the main parts of that Explication of this Rule which hath been premised are necessary to be put upon the Examination by every Conscience that acknowledging this duty would rightly censure it self in reference to the practice thereof the Issue of such an Examination sincerely made may be of good effect to the foul whatever the answer of the Conscience should prove to be For either it will tend to the Comfort of the Conscience which shall be able before God to testifie its own performance of these things though with weakness and imperfection or it will be useful towards a profitable effect of Humiliation and Repentance upon the Conviction of the neglect of so main a duty There can be no greater Comfort to the soul of a Christian than that which duly ariseth from the practice of those premises because there can be no greater evidence of Sincerity in the heart than that of such a practice For this if any thing is to be really and truly godly upright and faithful before God Such a one is the man after God's own heart Who is or can be a more faithful servant than he that aimes at his masters honour and service in all that he doth I may therefore with greatest confidence say to such a soul Well done good and faithful servant enter thou into thy Master's joy The utmost