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
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
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
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
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
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
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
of a Doubting Conscience in all Cases to follow the safer side that in many Cases it will be very unadvisable so to do Sure I am that in Doubtful Cases which concern the Civil Life no Wise man doth alwaies make this a Rule to himself We see a hundred Instances every day where men venture upon the less safe and the more hazardous side upon the account of other Reasons and considerations which they think ought more to prevail with them It is certainly in general speaking more safe that is more free from hazard or danger to Travel on Foot than on Horseback to stay at home than to go into Foreign Countries to Traffick by Land than to venture ones Stock on the uncertain Seas But yet for all this the consideration of the Ease and Expedition that is to be had in the first Case and the Improvement and Benefit that is to be hoped for in the second and the Gain and Profit in the last do we see every day overballance the consideration of Safety in these Cases and determine a man not to that side which is freest from Danger but to that which is more Convenient or more Vseful or more Advantageous And thus it is likewise as to those Doubtful Cases wherein a mans Conscience is concerned I suppose that when we speak of the safer side of any Action with reference to Conscience we generally mean that side on which there appears the least Hazard or Danger of transgressing any Law of God But now in this Sense of safety I do not think that it is always a good Rule for a Doubting Conscience to chuse the safer side On the contrary I think that if the Rule be thus put and thus understood it will often prove a Snare to a mans Mind and rather entangle him further in Difficulties than help him out of them If it was receiv'd as a Rule That a man is in all his Actions to keep himself at the greatest distance he can from the Danger of sinning which is the Notion of safety I here speak of I dare say there are very few Persons that converse much in the World but have reason almost every day to call themselves to account for transgressing this Rule For they do every day ingage in such Actions in which they cannot but acknowledge that they do expose themselves to a greater danger of sinning than if they had not ingaged in them Thus for instance what man is there among us who although he know himself to be prone enough to the sin of Intemperance in eating or drinking when Temptations are offered and accordingly for this reason doth most seriously set himself against this particular sin yet makes any great Scruple of going to Feasts and Entertainments when he is invited by others nay or of making them himself when Decency or Civility or the serving any of his Temporal affairs doth require him so to do But yet it is certain that by thus doing he runs a much greater Hazard of falling into the sin he fears than if he should forbear all such Occasions or Temptations of Intemperance Many other Instances which daily occur in Humane Life might be given wherein good men nay even the best of men do for the sake of their Business or other Laudable Designs which they think fit to pursue frequently venture to expose themselves to such dangers of sinning as they might have avoided and this without any Reproach from their own Conscience or any Censure from other Men. The truth is God hath no where commanded us to avoid all possible danger of sinning but onely to avoid all sin when we are in danger It is enough for the securing a mans Duty that he doth not transgress the Laws of God in any Action that he takes in hand But it is not required that he should in every instance of his Conversation preserve himself from the utmost possibility or if you will Danger of so doing For upon this Supposition it would be impossible for one to live like a man of this World and perform the common Offices of Civil Life and much more to live to any great purposes for the serving his Generation Indeed the Result of all would be That whoever would approve himself to be truly Religious and Conscientious must abandon all Secular Affairs and retire to a Cloyster or a Desart But it may be said What is this to our Business Those we now spoke of are supposed to be fully satisfied in their own Minds that they may safely venture on the more dangerous side of an Action for the sake of some considerable good that they design in that Action But the Case we are now concerned in is that of one who is altogether Doubtful whether he may Lawfully do the Action or no. To this I answer That my Business is now to give an account of the Rule by which men are to proceed in determining themselves in Doubtful Cases and that which I have said doth thus far I think come home to that Business that if it be allowed that it is advisable in any Case to forsake the more safe side of an Action and to chuse the more hazardous we will take it for granted that it may be as advisable in a Doubtful Case as in any other untill it be made to appear that God hath apointed a Rule for Doubting persons to govern themselves by different from that he hath given to other men Or to speak the thing more plainly till it be made to appear that those who are so unhappy as to Doubt are debarred of the priviledge of Acting according to the best of their Reason and Discretion which men that do not Doubt are allowed to do But to come more strictly to the Point I do believe there do abundance of Doubtful Cases properly so called frequently happen in which no Man of Understanding although we suppose him never so Honest doth think he is obliged to determine himself to that side of the Action on which he apprehends there is least Danger of sinning But on the contrary he will often forsake that side which is safer in this sense for that which doth more recommend it self to him upon other Accounts Thus for instance some times Doubtful Cases do happen in which the greater Probability on one side will turn the Ballance against the greater Safety on the other Thus if a Man should Doubt whether it may be Lawful to eat any thing Strangled or that hath Bloud in it because there are some Passages in the Scripture that seem to forbid these Meats and should repair to some intelligent Person about this matter who should give him such an account of those Texts and of all the other Difficulties in this Affair that the Man comes away satisfied that it is far more Probable that all kinds of Meats are allowed by the Christian Religion than that any are forbidden I ask now Whether this degree of Satisfaction have not weight enough to put an
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
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
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
hath weight enough with a Wise man to turn the Ballance on that side and to make that which abstractedly considered was a Doubtful Case to be clear and plain when it comes clothed with such Circumstances As I gave Instances in the Case of Vsury and Law Suits And twenty more might be added to them if it was to any purpose If this now be admitted for Truth we have a plain Resolution of the Case before us and that is this There are so many great Advantages both to the Kingdom and to a mans self to be obtained by Worshiping God in the way of the Church and likewise so many both Publick and Private Mischiefs and Inconveniences that are consequent upon Separation That if in any Case these Considerations have weight enough to Over-ballance a simple Doubt about the Lawfulness of an Action they will certainly have sufficient weight in this Case And that man who is not swayed by them doth not Act so reasonably as he might do For my part I should think it very foolishly done of any man that so long as he is utterly uncertain whether he be in the right or in the wrong as every one that Doubteth is should be so confident of his Point as to venture upon it no less a stake than the Peace of the Kingdom where he lives and the Security of the Religion Established and withal his own Ease and Liberty and lastly the Fortunes also of his Posterity And yet such a wise Venture as this doth every one among us make that upon the account of a bare Doubt about the Lawfuless of the things enjoyned in our Communion doth persist in disobedience to the Government and Separation from the Church I wish this was well considered by our Doubting Dissenters They are wise enough as to the World in other matters it is to be desired that they would be as wise in this And if they were I dare say it would not at all prejudice their Wisdom as to the other World It will be but little either to their Comfort or their Reputation at the long run to have it said of them that besides the Disturbance they have all along occasioned to the Publick Peace and Vnity they have also brought their Estates and Families into danger of Ruine by the just Prosecutions of Law they have drawn upon themselves and all this for the sake of a Cause which they themselves must confess they are altogether uncertain and unresolved about But this will appear much clearer when we have set the Doubt about Conformity upon the right Foot viz. Considered it as a Double Doubt as indeed it is in its own Nature Which I come now to do In the Second place There are other Dissenters who as they have good reason do Doubt on both sides of this Question As they Doubt on one hand whether it be not a sin to Conform to our Worship because there are several things in it which they suspect to be unlawful So on the other hand they Doubt whether it be not their Duty to Conform to it because the Laws of the Church and of the Land do require them so to do And of these as I said there are likewise two sorts Some perhaps are equally Doubtful whether the Terms of our Communion are Lawful or no and consequently must Doubt equally whether they be bound to Conform or no. Others Doubt unequally That is to say of the Two it appears more probable to them that our Communion is Sinful than that it is a Duty Now as to the first of these Cases The Answer is very short and it is this We have before proved by many Arguments that in a Case of a Pure Doubt about the Lawfulness of an Action where the Probabilities on both sides are pretty equal In that Case the Command of Authority doth always turn the Ballance on its own side so as that it is not only reasonable for the man to do that in Obedience to Authority of the Lawfulness of which he Doubteth but it is his Duty to do it he sins if he do not For this I refer my Reader to the Third General Head of this Discourse The only difficulty therefore is in the other Case where the Doubt is unequal And here the Case is this As the man apprehends himself in danger of sinning if he do not come to Church and obey the Laws So he apprehends himself in a greater danger of sinning if he do Because it doth appear more probable to him that our Communion is Sinful than that it is a Duty And a greater Probobility caeteris paribus is always to be chosen before a less But to this likewise we are ready provided of an Answer from the foregoing Discourse viz. That though it should be supposed that in such a Case as this where the Ballance is so far inclined one way the Authority of our Superiors alone will not have weight enough to cast it on its own side Yet in this Particular Case of Church Communion there are so many other Arguments to be drawn from the Consideration of the greater Sin and the more dreadful Consequences of disobeying the Laws than of obeying them as will with any Impartial Conscientious 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 him rather to Conform how strong soever his Doubt be about the Lawfulness of Conformity so long as it is but a Doubt than to continue in Separation Vide Third Proposition about a Double Doubt pag. 27. This is the Issue upon which we will try the Point before us and I refuse no indifferent Man that will but have the Patience to hear what we have to say to be Vmpire between us and our Dissenting Brethren as to this Controversie In the first place let us suppose and admit that the man who hath these Doubts and Suspicions about the Lawfulness of our Established Worship doth really Doubt on the true side and that he would indeed be a Transgressor of the Law of God if he should Conform to it But then it must be admitted likewise that That Law of God which forbids these things in dispute is wonderfully obscurely declared There are no direct Prohibitions either in the Law of Nature or the Book of God about those things that are now Contested so that the unlawfulness of them is only to be concluded from Consequences And those Consequences likewise are so obscure that the Catholick Church from Christs time till our Reformation was wholly ignorant of them For though it doth appear that either these or the like Usages have always been in the Church Yet it doth not appear in all that compass of Time either that any Particular Church ever condemned them as sinful Or indeed that any Particular Christian did ever Separate from the Church upon the Account of them And even at this Day these Consequences by which they are proved unlawful
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
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
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
such a priviledge if he judged it idolatrous to use what Idolaters had abused especially considering that he in the same Chapter exhorts them earnestly to flee from Idolatry Vers 14. Secondly This Position subjects the minds of Christians to infinite Scruples and Perplexities and naturally tends to reduce us to such a state and condition in which both the Jews and Gentiles were before the glorious light of the Gospel broke out upon the World that is it tends to beget and propagate a base servile temper and disposition towards God and to fill us with fears tremblings when we are engaged in his Worship and Service Whereas the true and great design of the Gospel is to breed in men a filial cheerful frame of heart the spirit of Love and of a sound or quiet Rom. 8. 15. 2 Tim. 1. 7. mind to give us a free easie comfortable access to God as to our Father and to encourage every good man to a diligent constant frequent attendance upon the duties of his Worship by the pleasure and delight that follows them But now if nothing may be used by us without highly offending God that either hath been or is abused to Idolatry who sees not what trouble and distraction will arise in our minds hereupon when we meet together to worship God It 's well known that most of our Churches were erected by Idolatrous Papists and as much defiled by Idolatry as any Gesture can be they are dedicated to several Saints and Angels whose Images were once set up and adored Our Bells Pews Fonts Desks Church-yards have been consecrated after a superstitious manner many Cups Flagons Dishes Communion-Tables have been given and used by Idolaters What now is to be done If Kneeling at the Sacrament be sinful because it hath been abused by Idolaters notoriously so also it is sinful to use any other Thing or Rite that hath if it be of mans divising as the afore-mentioned Writers limit the Question If Sitting were allowed by Authority we could not come to the publick Churches nor to the Sacrament nor christen our Children for all that if we know the Font and other Utensils of the Church were once abused to Idolatry by Papists We must first make a diligent search and if certain information cannot be had we can't Worship God in publick without panick fears and great disquiet of mind But Thirdly Such a Position as this will destroy all Publick Worship For if nothing must be used which hath been or is abused by Idolaters it will be in the power of Idolaters by ingrossing all the outward marks and signs of that inward veneration and esteem which we owe to God to smother our Devotions so as they shall never appear in the World and by that means frustrate the very end and design of Religious Assemblies And truly this work is already by the strength of this Principle very well effected For Kneeling at Prayers and Standing and Sitting and lifting up the hands and eyes to Heaven and bowing of the body together with Prayer and Praise and Singing have been all notoriously abused to Idolatry and are so at this day I know how it will be replied that they except such things as Object are necessary to be used in the Service of God it 's absolutely necessary that we worship God and do him publick Honour and whatsoever is necessary in order to this may lawfully be used by us without sin though the same gestures and signs of Adoration are used and abused by Idolaters To this I answer That this is cunningly but not honestly and Answ truly said For the Reasons they give to prove that it is sinful to use the same Rites and Ceremonies with Idolaters at any time prove it so at all times and make it for ever so So long as the Reasons hold to make any thing sinful so long it is so If the use or abuse of any thing by Idolaters make it simply evil then it must for ever remain so and no necessity whatsoever can take it off and make it lawful and innocent If such Things and See Gillesp. p. 128. Ceremonies which are or have been abused to Idolatry become sinful in these by respects and for these reasons viz. Because they 1. Reductive 2. Participative put us in mind of Idolatry and preserve the memory of Idols and secondly Because they move us to turn back to Idolatry and sort us with Idolaters then it will be ever sinful for us to use them Quia Monent Quia Movent 134. 149. For these Reasons will hold good in things that are of necessary use in the Church as well as in things that are not necessary that is nothing can hinder and destroy these effects they will ever mind us of and move us to Idolatry And from hence I conclude that this Principle is a very false one and ought to be laid aside For it is attended with this absurdity It obliges us utterly to abolish and forbids the use of all such Rites as have been notoriously abused to Idolatry in some cases for reasons which eternally hold in all So that at last it drives us into such streights that we must sin one way or other For either we must not worship God in publick or we must be guilty of Idolatry Gillesp. c. 3. p. 149. if we do And though of two Evils or Calamities the least is to be chosen yet of two Sins neither is Christian Religion flows from infinite Wisdom and the Laws of God do not cross one another but are even and consistent We are never cast by God under a necessity of sinning of transgressing one Law by the observance of another but thus it must be if we take up and stick to this Principle 3. Our Dissenting Brethren condemn themselves in what they allow and practise by the same Rule by which they condemn Kneeling at the Sacrament and other Rites of our Church For they themselves did use without Scruple such Places and Things and Postures as had been defiled and abused by Idolaters They were wont to be bare-headed in time of Divine Worship at Prayer and at the Sacrament and so do Idolatrous Papists they never affirmed that it was sinful to Kneel at our Prayers both publick and private yet this Gesture the Papists use in their Prayers to the Virgin Mary to the Cross to Saints and Angels They used our Churches Church-yards and Bells and never thought they sinn'd against God by so doing though they knew Direct of the day and place of Worship they had been abused Nay the Directory declares That such places are not subject to any such Pollution by any Superstition formerly used and now laid aside as may render them unlawful and inconvenient Rutherf of Scandal Q. 5 6. Mr. Rutherford saith of Bells grosly abused in time of Popery That it is unreasonable and groundless that thereupon they should be disused Upon which the Reverend Dr. Faulkner hath this judicious
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
Member may be reclaim'd or by its just Censures be cut off from the Communion If he shall neglect to hear them tell it to the Church Matth. 18. 17. Rubr. before the Commun Our Church hath given every Minister of a Parish power to refuse all scandalous and notorius sinners from the Lord's Supper and as slack and as much disus'd as Discipline is amongst us were such persons more generally inform'd against and complain'd of they would not find it so easie a matter to continue in their Offences and the Church together You see by what means the Church may either be clear'd in some measure of publick Offenders or the Members of it together with the Ordinances of God secur'd from infection by their fellowship By this did the Primitive Christians shew their Zeal for their Religion as well as by suffering for it They were infinitely careful to keep the honour of their Religion â—nspotted and the Communion of the Church as much out of danger as they could from the malignant influence of bad examples for this reason they watch'd over one another told them privately of their faults and when that would not do brought them before the cognizance of the Church and tho' lapsing into Idolatry in times of presecution was the common sin that for some Ages chiefly exerciz'd the Discipline of the Church yet all Offences against the Christian Law all Vices and Immoralities that were either publick in themselves or made known and prov'd to the Church came also under the Ecclesiastical Rod and were put to open Shame and Pennance this was that Discipline that preserv'd their Manners so Uncorrupt and made their Religion so Renown'd and Triumphant in the World and how happy would it be for us in this loose and degenerate Age as our own Church expresses Preface to the Comminat her wishes and desires were it again in its due Force and Vigour restored and resetled amongst us But if after all imaginable care and endeavour by private Christians some scandalous Members through the defects of Power in the Discipline or of Care and Watchfulness in Governours should remain in the Church whatever pollution those whose Office it is to rebuke with all Authority may draw on themselves Tit. 3. last by suffering it private Members that are no way neither by consent nor councel nor excuse accessary to their Sin can receive none for sin no otherwise pollutes than as it is in the will not as it is in the understanding as it 's chose and embrac'd not as it 's known I may know Adultery and yet be Chast see Strife and Debate in the City and yet be Peaceable hear Oaths and Curses and yet tremble at God's Name Noah was a good Man in an evil World Lot a righteous person amongst the conversation of the wicked neither is there any more fear of pollution from wicked Men in Sacred than in Civil Society Our Saviour and his Apostles were not the least defil'd by that Society they had with Scribes and Pharisees nor by that Familiarity they had with the accursed Judas tho' he eat the Passover with them and they kept him company after they knew him to be a Traytor What pollution did Abel receive from Cain when they Sacrific'd together Or Elkanah and Hannah from Eli's Debauch'd Sons when at Shilo they Worshipt together The good and bad indeed Communicate together but in what not in sin but in their common duty and tho' to Communicate with sin is sin yet to Communicate with a sinner in that which is not sin can be none Communion is a common union many partaking of one thing wherein they do agree now the common union of the good and bad in the Church is not in evil but in hearing of the Word in receiving of the Sacrament and in other holy Ordinances and Exercises when therefore some do evil the Communion in spiritual things is not polluted because evil is no part of the union in common one with another but the error of Man by himself out of the Communion which he himself and they only that have been partakers with him in it shall answer for Obj. But does not the Apostle say A little leaven 1 Cor. 5. 6. leaveneth the whole lump Ans This is a proverbial speech and shews only that sin like leaven is of a very spreading and diffusive nature not that it actually defiles where it is not admmitted A People in one Assembly are as a lump and a wicked person amongst them is as leaven but now altho' the leaven is apt to conveigh it self through the whole lump yet only are those parts actually leaven'd with it that take the leaven so it is with the Church the sinner by his bad example is apt to spread the infection through the whole body but only such as allow or any way communicate with him in his sin are actually infected such as Chloe that reprove the offender 1 Cor. 1. 11. and present him doing their utmost endeavour in their place ro reform him remain in spight of its malignity unpolluted Beware of the leaven of the Pharisees says our Saviour he adviseth not his Disciples to leave their Assemblies but to beware that they take no leaven of them shewing thereby that a good Man that stands upon his gaurd may be where leaven is and yet not be leaven'd The incestuous person was not cast out of the Church of Corinth and yet the Apostle says at least of some of them ye are unleaven'd ver 7. And why may not the joynt Prayers of the Church and the Examples of Pious and Devout Men in the Communion be as sovereign an antidote against the infection as the bare company of wicked Men is of power to convey it Why should not the holy Ordinances of God and the presence of holy Men at them be of as much virtue and efficacy to purge and sanctifie the whole body as the impurities of the bad are to stain and pollute it especially considering that the sins of the 2 Cor. 30. 18. wicked shall never be imputed to the righteous but the Prayers of the righteous have obtain'd pardon for the wicked Obj. But were not the pollutions of sin typified by Numb 19 13 20. the legal uncleannesses And was not every thing that the unclean person touch'd made unclean Ans Those legal and ceremonial pollutions concern not us under the Gospel we may touch a grave a dead person a leper and not at all be the less clean it 's not any outward uncleanness but the corruption and depravity of the inner man that incapacitates men for the Worship of God and Communion with him 2. Those legal pollutions did not defile the whole Communion but only those particular persons whom the unclean person touch'd for 1. There was no sacrifice appointed for any such pollution as came upon all for the sin of some few 2. Tho' the Prophets many times reproved the Priests
do appear that all Men do agree in their Notions and Sense about this matter That without doubt which they all thus agree in is the true Notion and Sense of Conscience Now as to this we may oberve in the first Place that a Man never speaks of his Conscience but with respect to his own Actions or to something that hath the Nature of an Action which is done or omitted by him or is to be done or omitted Matters of meer Knowledg and Speculation we do not concern our Conscience with as neither with those things in which we are purely Passive as neither with Actions if they be not our own We do not for instance make it a Point of Conscience one way or other whether a thing be true or false or whether this or the other Accident that befals us be prosperous or unfortunate or whether another Man hath done good or bad Actions in which we are no way concerned These kind of things may indeed prove matters of great Satisfaction or Disquiet of Joy or Grief to us But we do not take our Conscience to be affected with them That word never comes in but with respect to something willingly done or left undone by us or which we may do or may forbear Secondly we may observe that in Common Speech we do not neither use this word Conscience about our Actions but only so far as those Actions fall under a Moral consideration that is as they have the Nature of Duties or Sins or as they are Lawful or Vnlawful Always when we speak of Conscience in our Actions we have respect to some Law or Rule by which those Actions are to be directed and govern'd and by their agreeableness or disagreeableness with which they become morally Good or Evil. Thirdly this being so the only thing remaining to be enquired into for the finding out what Conscience is is what can be reasonably thought to be our Sense and meaning when we use the word Conscience with such Application to our Actions as we have now said Now for that I desire it may be considered that when we talk of our Actions as we concern our Conscience in them they can but fall under these two Heads of Distinction that is to say in the first place we either consider our Actions as already done or omitted or we consider them as yet not done but as we are deliberating about them And then Secondly whether we consider them as done or not done as past or future yet we Rank them under one of these three Notions We either look upon them as Commanded by God and so to be Duties or as forbidden by God and so to be Sins or as neither Commanded nor forbidden and so to be indifferent Actions With these last Actions indeed Conscience is not properly or directly concerned but only by accident to wit as those indifferent Actions do approach to the Nature of Duties or Sins Our Actions I say do not touch our Conscience but as they fall under some of these Heads Now in all these Respects we have indeed different ways of bringing in Conscience but yet as it will appear we mean the same thing by it in them all First of all when we are considering an Action as yet not done if we look upon it as Commanded by God we say we are bound in Conscience to do it if we look upon it as a Sinful Action we say it is against our Conscience to do it if we look upon it as an indifferent thing we say we may do it or not do it with a Safe Conscience Now I pray what do we mean by these expressions I desire that every one would consult his own Mind and deny if he can that this is the Sense of his words If he saith he is bound in Conscience to do this or the other thing whether he doth not mean this that he verily thinks it is his Duty to do that Action If he saith that it is against his Conscience to do such an Action whether he means any more than this that he is perswaded in his Judgment that to do such an Action is an Offence against God If he saith that he can do it with a Safe Conscience whether he hath any other meaning than this that to the best of his Knowledg and Judgment the Action may be done without Transgressing any Law of God This is now undeniably the Sense that every Man in the World hath when he makes mention of Conscience as to Actions that are not yet done but only proposed to his Consideration So that taking Conscience as it respects our Actions to be done or omitted and as it is to Govern and Conduct them in which Sense we call Conscience a Guide or a Monitor and sometimes though very improperly a Rule of our Actions it can be nothing else in the Sense of all Men that use that word but a Mans Judgment concerning the goodness or badness the Lawfulness or Unlawfulness of Actions in order to the Conduct of his own Life But Secondly if we speak of our Actions that are done and past and consider Conscience with Reference to them here indeed we do a little vary the Expression about Conscience but the Notion of it is the same we have now given As for instance when we talk of Peace of Conscience or Trouble of Conscience with Reference to some Action we have done or omitted when we say My Conscience bears me Witness that I have Acted rightly and honestly in this Affair or my Conscience acquits me from blame as to this or the other Action or I am troubled in Conscience for doing what I have done If we turn these Phrases into other words we shall find that there is nothing more at the bottom of them than this that reflecting upon our own Actions we find that in this or the other instance we have either Acted or omitted as we are convinced in our Judgment we ought to do and the remembrance of this is some Pleasure and Satisfaction to us or we have done or forborn something contrary to what we take to be our Duty and the remembrance of this affects us with grief and trouble But still in both these instances of Expression that which we mean by Conscience is the same thing as in the former Cases viz. It is our Judgment and Perswasion concerning what we ought to do or ought not to do or Lawfully may do only here we add to it this Consideration that the Action which we are perswaded to be good or bad or indifferent is now done or omitted by us and we do remember it In the Former Case Conscience was considered as the Guide of our Actions In the latter Case it is considered as the Witness of our Actions But in both Cases Conscience is the Judge and consequently in both Cases the Notion of it is the same only with this difference that in the former it was a Mans mind making a Judgment what he ought
is a Rule of Conscience we are not only to understand the prime Heads and most general Dictates of it which are but a few but also all the necessary Deductions from those Heads And by the Law of Scripture as it is the Rule of Conscience we are not only to understand the express Commands and Prohibitions we meet with there in the letter of the Text but all the things likewise that by unavoidable Consequence do follow from those Commands or Prohibitions In a word when we are deliberating with our selves concerning the goodness or badness the Lawfulness or Unlawfulness of this or the other particular Action We are not only to look upon the letter of the Law but to attend further to what that Law may be supposed by a Rational Man to contain in it And if we be convinced that the Action we are deliberating about is Commanded or Forbidden by direct Inference or by Parity of Reason we ought to look upon it as a Duty or a Sin though it be not expresly Commanded or Forbidden by the Law in the letter of it And if neither by the letter of the Law nor by Consequence from it nor by Parity of Reason the Action before us appear either to be Commanded or Forbidden In that Case we are to look upon it as an indifferent Action which we may do or let alone with a safe Conscience or to express the thing more properly we are to look upon it as an Action in which our Conscience is not so much concerned as our Prudence III. Having thus given an account of the Rule of Conscience that which Naturally follows next to be considered with Reference to our present design is what share Humane Laws have in this Rule of Conscience whether they be a part of this Rule and do really bind a Mans Conscience to the Observance of them or no which is our Third general Head Now as to this our Answer is that though the Laws of God be the great and indeed the only Rule of Conscience yet the Laws of Men generally speaking do also bind the Conscience and are a part of its Rule in a Secondary Sense that is by Vertue of and in Subordination to the Laws of God I shall briefly explain the meaning of this in the Four following Propositions First there is nothing more certain than that the Law of God as it is declared both by Nature and Scripture doth Command us to Obey the Laws of Men. There is no one Dictate of Nature more Obvious to us than this that we are to Obey the Government we Live under in all honest and Just things For this is indeed the Principal Law and Foundation of all Society And it would be impossible either for Kingdoms or States for Citys or Families to subsist or at least to maintain themselves in any Tolerable degree of Peace and Happiness if this be not acknowledged a Duty And then as for the Laws of God in Scripture there is nothing more plainly declared there than that it is Gods Will and our Duty to Obey them that have the Rule over us and to Submit our selves to every Ordinance of Man for the Lords sake and to be Subject not only for Wrath but for Conscience sake So that no Man can doubt that he is really bound in Duty to Obey the Laws of Men that are made by Just and Sufficient Authority And Consequently no Man can doubt that Humane Laws do really bind the Conscience and are one part of the Rule by which it is to be directed and Governed But then having said this we add this farther in the Second Place that Humane Laws do not bind the Conscience by any Vertue in themselves but meerly by Vertue of Gods Law who has Commanded that we should in all things be Subject to our Lawful Governours not only for Wrath but for Conscience sake Conscience is not properly concerned with any Being in the World save God alone it hath no Superiour but him For the very Notion of it as I have often said is no other than our Judgment of what things we are bound to do by Gods Law what things we are Forbidden to do by Gods Law So that all the Men in the World cannot bind any Mans Conscience by Vertue of any Power or Authority that is in them But now God having made it an everlasting Law both by Nature and Scripture that we should Obey those who are set over us whether they be our Parents or our Masters and much more our Princes and the Soveraign Legislative Power under whom we Live by Vertue of this Command of God and this only we are for ever bound in Conscience to Govern our Actions by the Commands that they impose upon us and those Commands of theirs are a Rule though a Consequential or a Secondary Rule by which we are to Govern our Conscience because they are the Instances of our Obedience to the Laws of God But then in the Third Place this is also to be remembered that Humane Laws do no farther bind the Conscience and are a Rule of it than as they are agreeable to the Laws of God If any Law or Command of Man do Clash with any Law of God that is if it be either Evil in it self or Contradictory to the Duty of Christians as laid down in the Scriptures in that Case that Law or Command by what Humane Authority soever it was made or given doth not bind our Conscience nor is any Rule of our Actions On the contrary we are not at any Rate to yield Obedience to it but we are here reduced to the Apostles Case and must Act as they did that is we must Obey God rather than Men and we Sin if we do not For since God only hath proper and direct Authority over our Conscience and Humane Power only by Delegation from him And since God hath not given any Commission to the most Soveraign Princes upon Earth to alter his Laws or to impose any thing upon his Subjects that is inconsistent with them It follows by necessary Consequence that no Man can be Obliged to Obey any Laws of Men farther than they are agreeable to and consistent with the Laws of God There is yet a Fourth thing necessary to be taken in for the clearing the Point we are upon and that is this That though Humane Laws generally speaking may be said to bind the Conscience and to be a part of its Rule Yet we do not Assert that every Humane Law though it doth not interfere with any of Gods Laws doth at all times and in all Cases Oblige Every Mans Conscience to Active Obedience to it so as that he Sins against God if he Transgress it No it would be a very hard thing to affirm this and I do not know what Manamong us upon these Terms would be Innocent Thus much I believe we may safely lay down as a Truth That where either the Matter of the Law is of such a Nature
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
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
not excuse him from guilt in not Practising it if indeed Gods Law hath made it a Duty So that it infinitely concerns all our Dissenting Brethren to consider very well what they do when they withdraw from our Communion Schism undoubtedly is a great and crying Sin A Sin against which there are as many hard things said in the Discourses of our Lord and his Apostles and in the Writings of the Ancient Christians as against any other Sin whatsoever And therefore let those that forsake our Communion and set up or joyn with other Assemblies in Opposition to ours I say let them look to it that they be not involved in the Guilt of this dreadful Sin They must be sure that their Separation proceeds upon good grounds if they would free themselves from the imputation of it It is not always enough to excuse them that they do believe there are Sinful Conditions imposed in our Communion and consequently it is their Duty to withdraw For unless the thing be so indeed their believing so will not cancel their Obligation to our Church Communion or make it cease to be Schism to withdraw themselves from it This may perhaps at the first hearing seem very strange Doctrine to many but yet it is true for all that and will appear a little more Evident if we put the Case in another instance wherein we are not so nearly concerned Here is one of the Roman-Catholick perswasion as they call it that hath been trained up in Popery and heartily believes it to be true Religion and the Only one wherein Salvation is to be had and therefore in Obedience to the Laws and Customs of that Church doth pay Religious Worship to Images doth pray to Saints and Angels doth give Divine Adoration to the Consecrated Bread in the Sacrament as really believing it to be turned into the Body of Christ to which his Soul and Deity is personally United Is now such a Person as this Guilty of Idolatry in these Practices or is he not He doth verily believe that he is not He would abhor these Practices if he did in the least believe that God had Forbid them as Idolatrous Nay he is so far from believing that they are Forbid that on the contrary he hath been taught to believe that they are necessary Duties and he cannot be a good Catholick unless he thus Worship Images and Saints and the Bread of the Host Well now the point is Whether such a Man believing as he doth be upon that Account acquitted from the Sin of Idolatry We all grant that if he had such clear Information about these things as we Protestants have he would certainly be an Idolater if he should contitinue in these Practices But whether his belief and Opinion and perswasion concerning these things do not excuse him and make that cease to be Idolatry that would otherwise be so This I say is the question But yet none of us make any great question of it For we do charge the Papists indiscriminately with Idolatry in their Worship notwithstanding their disclaiming it notwithstanding their Profession to Worship God no otherwise than according to his own Will notwithstanding they do really take themselves Obliged in Conscience to give Divine Worship to the Consecrated Elements and those other Objects And we charge them rightly in this For if it be really Idolatry by Gods word to do these things then it will be Idolatry in any Man to do them let his Opinion about them be what it Will. A Mans Ignorance or mistake or false Opinion doth not alter the nature of things it can neither make that cease to be a Duty which God hath Commanded nor that cease to be a Sin which God hath Forbidden All that it will do is that according to the Nature and Circumstances of it it may more or less Extenuate the Transgression that is committed upon the Account thereof And the Case is just the same in the matter before us For any Man to withdraw his Communion from that Church with which he ought and with which he may Lawfully Communicate That is as properly the Sin of Schism as it is the Sin of Idolatry to give Divine Worship to that which is not God For any Man therefore to break the Unity of the Church though it be upon this very Account that he doth believe it is his Duty so to do or that he cannot Communicate with that Church without Sin Yet if this perswasion of his be false and Erroneous he is no less a Schismatick for all this than the other Man is an Idolater that thinks it his Duty to adore Images and those other undue Objects of Divine Worship among the Romanists It is true the Mans Ignorance or Misperswasion will according to the greater or less Culpability of it more or less excuse the Mans Person before God as it doth in the other Case But it cannot in the least make that which God hath made to be Schism to be no Schism no more than in the other Case it makes that to be no Idolatry which Gods word hath declared to be Idolatry Well now admitting all this here comes the pinch of the thing It will be said What would you have a Man do in this Case He cannot conform with a safe Conscience and yet he is a Transgressor if he do not If he comply against his Conscience you grant he is guilty of Sin in so doing If he doth not Comply then you say he is a Schismatick and so is a Sinner upon that Account Why to this I say that both these things are often true and here is that Dilemma which Men by Suffering their minds to be abused with Evil Principles and Perswasions do frequently run themselves into They are reduced to that Extremity that they can neither Act nor forbear Acting They can neither Obey nor Disobey without Sin But what is to be done in this Case I know nothing but this That all Imaginable Care is to be taken that the Error and false Principles which misled the Man be deposed and that his Judgment be better informed and then he may both do his Duty which Gods Law requireth of him and avoid Sinning against his Conscience But how is this to be done Why no other way but by using Conscientiously all those means which common Prudence will Recommend to a Man for the gaining Instruction and Information to himself about any point that he desires throughly to understand That is to say Freeing his Mind from all Pride and Passion and Interest and all other carnal Prepossessions and applying himself seriously and impartially to the getting right Notions and Sentiments about his Duty in these matters Considering without prejudice what can be said on both sides Calling in the best assistance of the ablest and wisest Men that he can come by And above all things seriously endeavouring to understand the Nature and Spirit of the Christian Religion and to practice all that he is undoubtedly convinced to
endeavour to inform his Judgment aright in the matters that offend his Conscience before he withdraw his Obedience from his Lawful Governours and his Communion from those that Worship God in Publick under them It appears likewise that it is not enough to justifie a Mans Separation that this or the other thing in our Worship is really against his Conscience for he may be a great Sinner notwithstanding that for leaving our Assemblies if it should prove at last that he is mistaken in his Notions What therefore should every Dissenter among us do that hath any regard to his Duty and would preserve a good Conscience I say what is there that more concerns him to do than presently to set about the true informing of his Judgment in the points where he is now dissatisfi'd for â—ear he be found to live in a grievous Sin all the time he Separates from us And therefore let no Man that Lives out of our Communion satisfie himself with such frivolous pretences as these That as for all the Substantials of Religion the matters of Faith and Good Life they do agree with us and that as for the other matters which concern Ceremonies and Discipline these are Nice Controverted Points Points disputed pro and contra amongst the Divines And therefore why should they trouble their Heads about them nay perhaps if they should they have neither Abilities nor Opportunities to understand them It must be confessed that something of this is true But yet it is nothing to their purpose It is very well that we all agree in the Rule of Faith and Manners and it would be happy if all the Christian World did so too But still Schism is a dreadful Sin And a Man may as certainly without Repentance be damned for that as for being an Heretick in his Opinion or a Drunkard for instance in his Manners Sure I am the Ancient Christian Fathers thought so It is true likewise that the business of Church Government and Discipline and other Points of Ecclesiastical Conformity is a matter of Dispute and Controversy among us But who is it that made it so The Church of England without doubt would have been very well pleased if there had been no dust raised no dispute or contentions moved in these matters but that every Member would have done his Duty peaceably and quietly in his Station Or that if any Controversy had arose it should have been debated among Learned Men and never have proceeded to Separation from the Communion We do not pretend to lay any stress upon Skill and Knowledg about these matters in Order to a Mans Salvation We believe and teach that a Man may be a very good Christian and go to Heaven that never understood how to justifie the Cross in Baptism or to defend the Common Prayer Book against all the Exceptions that are made against it All that we say is that if any Man will scruple and except against the use of these things it lyes upon him nay he is bound as he would keep a good Conscience to use the best means he possibly can to get Satisfaction about them Or if he do not at his own Peril be it nay even at the Peril of his Salvation if he breaks the Churches Peace and Communion upon that Account And as for those that pretend that these are Subtil Points and above their Reach and Capacity and they have not understanding and Wit enough to dive into them Why in Gods Name who desires them We say that they might Innocently enough and with a good Conscience comply with their Governours in these Points as they do in a hundred others without ever diving into them But since it seems they have Wit and Vnderstanding enough to cavil and find fault with these things and upon that Account to deny their Obedience to those Lawful Powers which God hath set over them One would think they should at the same time have so much Honesty as seriously to endeavour to give themselves Satisfaction as to those things they find fault with And this is all we desire of them And it is for their own sakes too as well as ours that we desire it For otherwise they will never be able to answer either to God or Man for the horrible Inconveniences and mischiefs that arise to the Church of Christ by the Division and Separation which they are engaged in To conclude if in any Instance that Famous Precept of the Apostle of proving all things and holding fast that which is good do Oblige Christians it doth especially in this If ever it be a Mans Duty to satisfie himself about the goodness and Lawfulness of a thing that he is apt to doubt of it is certainly in the Case where his Superiours have laid their Commands upon him For there he cannot disobey without Sin unless he can assure himself that he hath done all that he can to reconcile their Commands with his Duty to God but upon the best means he hath used he finds them irreconcileable For a Man to disobey till he has done this is an unwarrantable thing and in the Case that I now speak of it is no less than the Sin of Formal Criminal Schism FINIS A DISCOURSE OF CONSCIENCE THE SECOND PART Concerning a Doubting Conscience LONDON Printed for Walter Kettilby at the Bishops-Head in St. Paul's Church-Yard 1685. THE CASE OF A Doubting Conscience I Have in a former Discourse spoken to the Case of those Dissenters who separate from the Established Church for this Reason That they are Perswaded that they cannot Lawfully joyn in our Communion I now come to speak to the Case of those who separate from us for a less Reason viz. Because they Doubt whether they may lawfully Communicate with us or no and so long as they thus Doubt they dare not come near us because they fear they should sin against God if they should do any Action with a doubting Conscience To this indeed a short Answer might be given from the former Discourse and that is this That let the Obligation of a doubting Conscience be as great as we can reasonably suppose it yet if Communion with our Church as it is Established be really a Duty then a Mans Doubts concerning the Lawfulness of it will not make it cease to be so or justifie his Separation from it For if a Manssetled Perswasion that an Action is unlawful will not ordinarily acquit him from Sin if he omit that Action supposing Gods Law hath commanded it as I there shew'd much less will a mans bare Doubt concerning the Lawfulness of an Action justifie his Omission of it in such a Case But because this Answer seems rather to cut the Knot than to unty it it is my meaning in the following Discourse particularly to examine and discuss this Plea of a Doubting Conscience and to shew what little force there is in it to keep any man from Conformity that would otherwise Conform Hoping that some Reader whose Case this
forbidden it So that in all doubtful Cases where a man apprehends no danger of transgressing Gods Law whether he doth the Action he doubts about or doth it not there his Conscience is not properly concerned And this is so true that though we should suppose one side of the Action in question to be really all things considered more expedient and more eligible than the other yet so long as we are satisfied that we may without breach of Gods Law chuse either side we are not concern'd in Conscience to chuse that side which is the most expedient or the most eligible For the truth of this besides the reason of the thing we have the authority of St. Paul who when this Case was proposed to him Whether it was better for the Christians in those times to marry or not to marry he thus resolves it That though indeed as things then stood it was better not to marry yet they might do what they would for if they did marry they sinned not and though as he saith he that gave not his Virgin in marriage did better than he that gave her in marriage yet he allowes that he that gave her in marriage did well and consequently did act with a good Conscience Vid. 1 Cor. 7. 3. From what hath been said we may be able to give a clear account of the Nature of a Doubting Conscience and to distinguish it from the other sorts of Conscience particularly that which they call the Scrupulous which is our Third Point under this Head Conscience is usually though how properly I will not now dispute distributed into these three Kinds the Resolved the Scrupulous and the Doubting When we speak of a Resolved Conscience every body knows that we mean no more by that Phrase than this that a man is satisfied and resolved in his own Mind concerning the action he hath been deliberating upon viz. that he is bound to do it as being a Duty or that he is bound to forbear it as being a Sin or that he may either do it or forbear it as being an Indifferent action neither commanded nor forbidden by God Now this Perswasion if it be according to the Rule of the Divine Law we call it a Right Conscience If it be contrary to that Rule we call it an Erroneous Conscience But of this we need speak no more here since it was the whole argument of the former Discouse As for the Scrupulous Conscience as that is made a distinct sort of Conscience from the Resolved and the Doubting we may thus define it It is a Conscience in some measure resolved but yet accompanied with a Fear of acting according to that Resolution It is the unhappiness of a great many that when they are pretty well satisfied in their Judgment concerning this or the other Point which they made a Matter of Conscience and have nothing considerable to Object against the Evidence that is given them but on the contrary are convinced that they ought or that they may lawfully Act thus or thus Yet for all that when they come to act they are very uneasie and make a World of Difficulties Not that there is any new Reason appears that can pretend to unsettle much less overthrow the Grounds of their first Determination But only their unaccountable Fears must pass for Reasons This now is to have a Scrupulous Conscience in the proper Sense But a Doubting Conscience which is that we are now concerned in though in Common Speech it be often confounded with the Scrupulous is quite different from both these sorts of Conscience For in both those a man is supposed to have passed a Judgment in his own Mind whether the Action before him be according to Gods Law or against it But in the Case of a Doubting Conscience it appears from what I have said that a man hath not nor cannot so long as he doubts make any Judgment at all but is uncertain as to both sides having as he thinks as many Arguments to incline him one way as the other and when once he comes to have so much Evidence as to create a Perswasion or Opinion on one side then he ceaseth to have a Doubting Conscience So that the True Definition of a Doubting Conscience as it is commonly called is this The Suspence of a mans Judgment in a Question about the Duty or the Sin of an Action occasioned by the Equal or near Equal Probalities on both sides And likewise the true Difference between a Doubting a Resolved and a Scrupulous Conscience is this That the Resolved Conscience is satisfied about its Point and acts confidently at least chearfully The Scrupulous Conscience is likewise satisfied in the general but either dares not act or acts fearfully The Doubting Conscience is not satisfied at all for the Point before it is still a Question of which it can make no Judgment no Resolution because of the equal appearances of Reason on both sides This is a plain account of the Doubting Conscience But after all it must be acknowledged that this which we call a Doubting Conscience and which we have been all this while discoursing of is truly and strictly speaking so far from being any particular sort or kind of Conscience as we have hitherto supposed it that it is no Conscience at all Conscience as we have often said is a Mans Mind making a Judgment about the Morality of his Actions But that which we are now talking of is a mans Mind making no Judgment as to that Point but continuing wavering and undetermined Now how a mans Judgment and his no Judgment which are the Contradictories to one another should agree in the same Common Nature of Conscience is not easie to be understood The Truth is by the same Logick or propriety of Speech that we say a Doubting Conscience we may also if we please say an unresolved Resolution or a Perswasion without an Assent But however because Use hath given the Name of Conscience to the Doubting Mind and because Conscience is sometimes really concerned about Acting in Doubtful Cases I chuse to follow the common way of speaking II. I now proceed to our Second general Head which is concerning the Rule of a Doubting Conscience In speaking to this I shall do these two things viz. I shall shew First What kind of Rule we here speak of that is which Conscience needs in a Doubtful Case Secondly What that Rule is or wherein it doth consist 1. As to the first of these When we speak of the Rule of a Doubting Conscience we do not mean such a Rule by which a man shall be enabled to resolve all his Doubts concerning every Point so as that he shall cease to doubt any longer concerning that Point But we mean only such a Rule by which a man may be directed how to determine himself in every Doubtful Case so as to act with a safe Conscience whether he can get rid of his Doubts or not There is just as much difference
Table because he is indeed in such a state and disposition of mind as renders him habitually qualified for the performance of that Duty But this as I said is not the Question before us we here suppose the Man either through want of Means of Instruction or through strong Prejudices from Education or the like to be incapable at present of this Satisfaction and to be in great perplexity on both sides and that which we are to enquire into is to which side of the doubtful Case he must determine himself Shall he receive the Sacrament doubting as he doth or shall he forbear it doubting as he doth Now I say a man hath no other way of coming to a Resolution of this Question but by applying the Rules I before laid down to his present Case which may be done in this manner Since the Man we speak of doubteth that he sins whether he come to the Sacrament or forbear the First thing to be considered is on which side he doubts least or which side appears to him most likely and probable to be free from the danger of sinning For if all other things in the Case be equal the Ballance is to be turned on that side according to our first Proposition Now if our present Question be put upon this Issue I am confident the Man whose Case I am representing will think it more reasonable to repair to the Sacrament even in that evil posture he takes himself to be than customarily to abstain from it Because by thus doing he doth certainly follow the more probable and the less doubtful or dangerous side of the Question For it is evident he cannot pretend to be half so certain of this Particular viz. That he is unprepared for the Sacrament which is the reason of his abstaining as he is certain in the General that it is his Duty to frequent it If indeed the Man was a person of ill Life and Manners Or if he had been lately guilty of any Notorious Wilful Sin and came to the Lords Table with that sin upon his Conscience unrepented of Then I will grant he had some reason to believe that he was as much in danger of sinning by receiving unworthily as by withdrawing himself from Gods Ordinance But the Case here is not so The Man is really an honest well-meaning Christian nor hath he done any thing of late which can give him any suspicion of his having forfeited that Title Only through his Mistake about the Notion of preparation for the Sacrament he apprehends he is not qualified as he ought to be though yet if most others were to be Judges of his Condition they would say he was Why certainly in this Case it must be evident to the Man that he runs a greater danger of transgressing the Law of God by absenting himself from the Communion especially if he do it customarily than if he should come to it with all his Fears and Doubts about him For as I said his Fears and Doubts of his own unworthiness cannot possibly be so well grounded as his Fears and Doubts that he sins against God by habitually denying his attendance on that great Christian Service For those are founded on the express Laws of the Gospel The others are founded onely on uncertain conjectural Surmises about his own condition That is to say he is certain that he is bound to take frequent opportunities of paying his homage to Jesus Christ in the Sacrament but he cannot pretend to have such assurance in his Case that he is unqualified for paying that homage But Secondly Let us suppose the Doubt is equal on both sides That is to say that the Man hath as much reason to believe that he is an unworthy Receiver if he receives at all as he hath reason to believe that it is a Sin in him if he do not receive Which yet can hardly be supposed in our Case but let us suppose it nay if you please let us suppose the Man doth certainly sin whether he recives or forbears Here then this comes to be considered which of these two Sins is the least To Receive unworthily yet out of a Sense of Duty or not to receive at all For on which side soever this last sin happens to be to that side the Man is to determine himself according to our second Rule It being eternally reasonable That of two Evils we should chuse the least when we cannot avoid both Now putting the Case before us upon this Issue there needs no more to be done for the resolving it than only to ask this general Question Which is the greater sin of these two for a Man to omit a known Duty and so to break a known Law of God for Conscience sake Or to yield Obedience to that Law for Conscience sake when yet it so happens that a Man cannot do that without breaking another Law of God in the manner of his Performance of that Duty For my part I should think that the Man who doth this last though he cannot be said to be Innocent yet is he guilty in a far less degree than the Man that practiseth the former and a great deal more is to be said in his justification Let us suppose two Men both of them conscious to themselves that as things stand with them they are not in a fit condition so much as to say their Prayers or to perform any other act of Religious Worship as they ought to do now one of these Men doth upon this account forbear all Prayers both Publick and Private neither using his Closet nor frequenting the Church The other hath such a Sense of what both Natural Religion and Christianity do oblige him to in this matter that he dares not forbear his usual Offices either in Publick or Private though yet he believes he sinfully performs them If the Question now be put which of these two is the better Man or the least Offender I dare say that all men will give their Judgment in favour of the latter though yet no Wise man will think that this Person is to be excused for living at such a rate that he cannot say his Prayers without Sin This Judgment I say men would pass in this Case and there is a great deal of Reason for it For certainly no indisposition that a man hath contracted of what nature soever will take off from his Obligation to obey the Laws of God If a man cannot do his Duty so well as he ought he must at least do it as well as he can And therefore let his Circumstances be what they will he must needs be less Criminal in performing a known Duty in the best manner that his Condition will allow him though with many and deserved Reflections upon his own Vnworthiness than in wholly omitting or disusing that Duty Because a neglect in the manner of performing a Duty is a less fault than to neglect the Substance of it Let this now that I have said be applyed to our
Case and we have an easie resolution of the Question before us viz. That since a greater sin is to be avoided before a less when a man supposes himself to be under a necessity of being guilty of one it is more reasonable that the man we speak of should come to the Sacrament with all his Doubts concerning his unworthiness than that he should customarily and habitually withdraw himself from it because it is a greater sin to do this latter than the former Well but some say How can this consist with St. Paul's Doctrine Who expresly affirms That whoever eateth and drinketh unworthily eateth and drinketh 1 Cor. 11. 29. Damnation to himself Can there be any more dreadful sin than that which if a man be guilty of it will actually Damn him Certainly one would think by this that a man runs a much less hazard in not Receiving at all than in venturing to Receive whilest he hath the least Doubt that he Receives unworthithily considering the dreadful Consequences of it But to this I briefly answer Such a man as we all along suppose in our Case is in no danger at all of Receiving unworthily in the Sense that St. Paul useth this Term. For the unworthy receiving that he so severly Censures in the Corinthians was their approaching to the Lords Table with so little a sense of what they were about that they made no distinction between the Lords Body and common Food Ibid. v. 29. v. 20 21 22. But under a pretence of meeting for the Celebration of the Lords Supper they used the Church of God as if it was an Eating or Tipling House Some of them Revelling it there to that degree that they went away Drunk from these Religious Assemblies All this appears from the Text. But I hope none among us especially none of those who are so doubtful about their being duly qualified do profane the Sacrament in this manner But further Perhaps the Damnation which St. Paul here denounces is not so frightful as is commonly apprehended For all that he saith if either the Original or the Margin of our English Bibles be consulted will appear to be this He that eateth and drinketh unworthily eateth and drinketh Judgment to himself Meaning hereby in all probability that he who doth thus affront our Lords Instistution by making no distinction between the Bread of the Sacrament and common Meat doth by this his profaneness draw severe Judgments of God upon himself For for this cause saith he many are weak and Ver. 30. sickly among you and many are fallen asleep But here is not a word of Everlasting Damnation much less of any mans being put into that State by thus receiving unworthily Unless any man will say that all those who are visited with Gods Judgments in this World are in the State of Damnation as to the next Which is so far from being true that St. Paul in this very place affirms the contrary viz. in the 32. Verse where he tells us That When we are thus judged in this World we are chastened of the Lord that we should not be condemned with the World i. e. with Wicked men in another Life But further Admitting St. Paul in these words to mean Damnation in the usual Sense yet still the utmost they can come to will be no more than this That whosoever eateth and drinketh thus unworthily as the Corinthians did is guilty of a Damnable sin But now there are a great many other Cases besides this of the Sacrament in which a Man is equally guilty of a Damnable Sin if he do not perform his Duty as he ought to do He that Prays or Hears unworthily He that Fasts or gives Alms unworthily In a word He that in any Instance performs the Worship of God or professeth the Christian Religion unworthily I say such a Man according to the Protestant Doctrine may be said to do these things to his own Damnation upon the same account that he is said to Eat and Drink his own Damnation that Communicates unworthily in the Sacrament though indeed not in so high a degree That is to say such a Man is guilty of a Sin that is in its own Nature Damnable and may prove actually so to him unless either by a particular or general Repentance he obtains Gods pardon for it But yet for all this there is no man will for these Reasons think it adviseable to leave off the practice of these Duties but the only Consequence he will draw from hence is that he is so much the more concerned to take care that he perform them as he ought to do But in the last place Let the sin of coming to the Sacrament unworthily be as great and as damnable as we reasonably can suppose it Yet this is that we contend for the sin of totally withdrawing from it is much greater and more damnable So that if he who partakes of it unworthily doth eat and drink Damnation to himself He that partakes not at all is so far from mending the matter that he doth much increase that Damnation The truth of this doth fully appear from what I have before spoke in General concerning the much greater sin of transgressing a known 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 Privilege 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 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
Answer to this Argument and the Answer indeed which I mainly stand upon Yet there is another Answer given to it by the Casuists which because it is the Answer that our Learned Bishop Sanderson thought fit to pitch upon I ought not to pass it by without mention nor if I can without some improvement I must confess if we do admit this Answer the Authority and Obligation of a Doubting Conscience will be set higher than I do in this Discourse suppose it But however it may be a good Answer to the Dissenters because it unties the difficulty upon their own Principles The Answer is this 2. In the Second place Allowing that the Man whose Case St. Paul speaks to in this Text was really a Doubting Person and not one that was Perswaded as we have hitherto supposed Yet it doth by no means follow that because this Man was guilty of Sin and Condemned for eating those Meats of the Lawfulness of which he Doubted Therefore a Man that Obeys Authority in an Instance where he Doubts of the Lawfulness of the Command that such a Man Sins and is Condemned for so doing This I say doth not at all follow For there is a vast Disparity in the Cases and to argue from one to the other is to argue from a Particular to an Vniversal or from one Particular to another without respect to the different Circumstances of each Case which is against all the Rules of Logick If St. Paul had said He that Doubteth is Damned if he Act there had been some pretence for making his Sentence an universal Proposition so as to extend to all Doubting Men in all Cases But now only saying He that Doubteth is Damned if he eat it shews that he only spoke to the Particular Case that was before him and that other Cases are no farther concerned in his Proposition than as they do agree in Circumstances with the Case he there speaks to Now the Case the Apostle there treats of and That which we are now concerned about are so far from any way agreeing in the main Circumstances by which a Man is to measure the Goodness or the Badness of an Action that there cannot be two Doubtful Cases put that are more different as â— shall now shew If St. Paul do at all here speak to the Case of a Doubting Man he speaks of one that Acted Doubtingly in a matter where it was in his own Power to Act without a Doubt That is He was in such Circumstances that he knew he might certainly without sin refuse to eat those Meats concerning which he doubted for there was no colour of obligation upon him to eat them But yet in this Case where he was perfectly at Liberty to let alone for the serving some evil unwarrantable ends he would not chuse that side which was safe and where he need fear no sin which was to forbear but would chuse that side that was Doubtful that is would run a needless hazard of transgressing some Law of God It is of such a Man and in such a Case as this that St. Paul speaks when he saith He that Doubteth is condemned if he eat Supposing indeed that his words are at all to be expoundin this Sense But now because it is thus in this Case and in all such like if you please Doth it therefore follow from these words that a Man that is in other Circumstances that is not at Liberty to chuse his own way as not being at his own disposal but under the Direction and Government of Authority That this man sins and is condemned if he obey the Orders of his Superiours when he is Doubtful of the Lawfulness of the thing in which he expresseth his Obedience No by no means For this Case hath a quite different Consideration In the former Case there was only danger on one side and that was in Acting and the Man might forbear if he pleased and that without any danger But in the other Case there is danger on both sides and the man runs at least as great a hazard in forbearing the Action nay we say a much greater as if he should do it So that undeniably unless we will make one Rule to serve for all Cases though never so different which is the absurdest thing in the World For any thing that St. Paul hath here said to the contrary this latter man may not only without sin do the thing he doubts of but is bound to do it Whereas if the other man spoken of in the Text should do the Action he doubts of it might be a sin in him But further That St. Paul meant not to extend his Proposition to all Doubtful Cases but only to such Cases as he here treats of is pretty evident from the Reason that he gives why he that eateth Doubtingly sins in so doing viz. Because he eateth not of Faith He doth not say He that Doubteth is Condemned if he eat because he eateth with a Doubting Conscience If he had said so I grant the Reason of his Proposition would have reached all Doubting men in all Cases but this is that which he saith He that Doubteth is condemned if he eat because he eateth not of Faith So that if there be any Doubtful Cases wherein a Man may Act with Faith notwithstanding his Doubt I hope it will be allowed that those Cases are excepted out of St. Paul's Proposition Now that there are such Cases and that our Case of Obeying Authority is one of them I thus prove Whosoever so Acts as that he is satisfied in his own mind that what he doth is according to his Duty in the present Circumstances Such a Man Acts with Faith in reference to that Action This is evident from the very Notion of Faith as it is here spoken of of which I have before given an Account But now it is very possible that a Man may have a Doubt concerning the Lawfulness of an Action and yet be in such Circumstances as that he shall be satisfied that is very reasonable and agreeable to his Duty nay as the Case may be that he is really bound to do that Action concerning which he thus Doubts rather than not to do it Because the not doing that Action all things considered appears to him more dangerous or attended with worse Consequences This now being granted it undeniably follows That wherever a man lights into these Circumstances he is not a Sinner even according to the strictest Sense of these words though he Act with some kind of Doubt because he Acts in Faith That is he is resolved in his own Conscience that thus it behoveth him to act in the present Case and that it would be unreasonable or sinful to act otherwise So that let our Adversaries make the most of St. Paul's words that they can it is a very Illogical Inference to say That whoever Acts with a Doubt upon his Conscience in any Case is guilty of Sin and much more is it so to
affirm it in our present Case of Obeying Authority For it is certain that many Men are and I believe all Men may be satisfied that in a purely doubtful Case it is not only more reasonable but their Duty to Obey their Superiours Well But it will be said Do not we here talk contradictions Can a Man have Faith about an Action that is be resolved in his own Conscience that such an Action is to be done or may lawfully be done and yet Doubt concerning it at the same time I Answer This is so far from being a Contradiction that it is a Case that every day happens where a Man hath a Doubt on both sides as it is in the Instance before us A man often hath very great Doubts of the Lawfulness of this or the other Action when he considers the Action in general But yet when he comes to weigh the Circumstances he is in and the Reasons he hath in those Circumstances for the doing the Action he may be perswaded that it is better for him to do the Action than to let it alone notwithstanding all the Doubts he hath about it That is Though he doubt of the Lawfulness of the Action it self considered without his present Circumstances yet as it comes Circumstantiated to him he doth not doubt but it may be lawfully done by him But of this I have spoke largly before in my Explication of the Rule of a Doubting Conscience But is not all Doubting contrary to Faith I answer No it is not For such kind of Doubting as we here speak of doth we see very well consist with Faith My meaning is it is not necessary in order to a Mans having Faith about an Action that all his Doubts concerning that Action should be destroyed it is abundantly sufficient that they be over-ballanced That which I would say is this Whereever a man hath such a degree of Perswasion touching any Action he is deliberating about that he believes it more advisable to a reasonable man all things considered to do than Action than to forbear it such a man hath all the Faith that is needful to the doing that Action with a safe Conscience though in the mean time he may have such Doubts concerning that Action as will perhaps be too hard for him to resolve and will create him likewise some trouble and uneasiness in the doing of it Though indeed to speak properly I think these ought not any longer to be called Doubts after they are thus over-ruled or over-ballanced but rather to go under the Name and Notion of pure Scruples which the Casuists of all Perswasions do not only allow but advise that a man should act against In plain English That Doubtfulness about an Action which St. Paul speaks of and which he Censures as a sin was such a Doubtfulness as after the Action was done rendred the man Self-condemned his Conscience could not but reproach him for doing as he did But now in our Case the Man is not at all Self-condemned because he hath the Testimony of his Conscience that he hath acted according to the best of his Judgment and Discretion Though he acts with a Doubt yet he is satisfied he hath made the most reasonable Choice that he could in his Circumstances And whereever a man doth so he both acts in Faith and without any danger of Condemnation from his own Conscience So that after all the Bustle that is made about doing or forbearing an Action with a Doubting Conscience you see there is no great intricacy in the Case nor any necessity of sinning on both hands always supposing a man to be Sincere and Honest For if he be really so he will always do that which he judges most according to his Duty or at least that which he judges to be consistent with it and whereever a man doth thus it is certain he Acts with a safe Conscience notwithstanding any Doubt he may have about the Action Because more than the former a man cannot do and more than the latter he is not bound to do As for what sins an Erroneous Conscience may ingage a man in or what troublesome Reflections a Melancholly Imagination may occasion to him in these Cases I am not to answer for them they are of another Consideration IV. Having thus largly treated of the Nature of a Doubting Conscience and of the Rules by which a man is to Act whenever it happens and that both when he is left at his own Liberty and when he is under the the Commands of others All that remains to be done is to speak something about the Authority or Obligation of a Doubting Conscience which is our Fourth and last general Head But in truth the Discussion of this might very well be spared after what I have said relating to this Argument in several places of the foregoing Discourse particularly under my last Head However I shall endeavour to give some Account of this Point though I intend it a very short one because indeed what I have to offer is not so much any new matter as an Application of the Principles I have before laid down to our present purpose The Point in question is concerning the Authority of a Doubting Conscience Or Whether a Doubting Conscience doth bind at all and how far In answer to this I say in general It is certain that a Doubting Conscience of it self lays no Obligation at all upon a man any way Indeed it is a kind of Contradiction to suppose that it should For I pray What is the Notion of a Doubting Conscience but this That a man is uncertain or unresolved in his mind whether as to this particular Action he be bound or not bound To suppose now that a man is obliged in Conscience either way by vertue of this Doubt is plainly to suppose that a man takes himself to be bound while yet at the same time he is disputing with himself whether he be bound or no. To speak this plainer if I can Since Conscience as I have often said 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 or Forbidding them is the only Rule by which a man can judge what Actions are Duties and what are Sins and what are Indifferent It plainly follows that 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 or to Forbear any Action which he is not convinced in his Judgment that Gods Law hath some where or other Forbidden and so made a Sin And therefore since in a Case where a Man is purely Doubtful he cannot be supposed to have any such Convictions that the Law of God doth either Command or Forbid the Action Doubted of for if he had he would no longer Doubt It follows likewise by undeniable Consequence that a Mans Conscience
are not discovered by our Governours either in Church or State No nor by as Learned and Religious Divines of all Perswasions as any in the World The most Divines by far the most and those as Pious and as Able as any are clearly of Opinion that there is nothing Vnlawful in our Worship but that on the contrary all things therein prescribed are at least Innocent and free from sin if not Pure and Apostolical So that if it should at last prove that they are all mistaken Yet the Law of God which forbids these things being so very obscure and the Sense of it so hardly to be found out it is a great Presumption that a man may very innocently and inculpably be Ignorant of it And if so it will be a very little or no sin at all in him to act against it Because if it was not his Duty to know this Law it cannot be his Sin that his Practice is not according to it And if it was his Duty to know it yet it being so obscurely delivered and only to be gathered by such remote Consequences it can at most be but a Sin of Ignorance in an ordinary Person where so many of the best Guides are mistaken if he should transgress it And then farther This must likewise be considered That if Conformity to our Liturgy and Worship should prove a sin in any Instance Yet the Evil Consequences of it extend no farther than the Mans Person that is guilty of it There is no damage ariseth either to the Christian Religion or to the Publick Interest of the Kingdom by any mans being a Conformist But on the contrary as things stand with us Vnity and Conformity to the Established way seem to bring a great advantage to both as I hinted before and to be a probable means to secure us from many Dangers with which our Reformed Religion and the Peace of the Kingdom is threatned Well but now on the other hand Let us suppose the contrary side of the Question to be true viz. That our Governours in this matter are in the Right and we are in the Wrong That there is nothing required of us in the Church of England as a Term of Communion but what is very Innocent and Lawful however it be our misfortune to Doubt that there is and in a zealous Indulgence to these Doubts we take the liberty to live in open disobedience to our Lawful Governous and to break the Unity of the Church into which we were Baptized I say admitting the thing to be thus what kind of Sin shall we be guilty of then Why certainly we are guilty of no less a Sin than causlesly dividing the Body of Christ against which we are so severely cautioned in the New Testament We are guilty of the Breach of as plain Laws as any are in the Bible viz. Of all those that oblige us to keep the Vnity of the Spirit in the Bond of Peace that Command us to Obey those that are over us in the Lord to be subject to the Higher Powers to submit to every Ordinance of man for the Lords sake to be subject not only for Wrath. but for Conscience sake I say these plain Laws we disobey for Conscience sake and we disobey them too in such Instances where we have the whole Catholick Church of old and far the greatest and the best part of the present Church of a different Perswasion from us Well but as if this was not enough What are the Consequences of this our Sin For by the Consequences of a sin the greatness of it is always to be estimated I speak as to the Material part of it with which we are here concerned Why they are most Terrible and Dreadful both with respect to our selves and others By this unnatual Separation we do for any thing we know put our selves out of the Communion of the Catholick Church and consequently out of the enjoyment of the ordinary means of Salvation We maintain and keep up Divisions and Disorders in the Church and lend a helping hand to all those Animosities and Hatreds all that bitter Contention and Strife and Uncharitableness which hath long torn the very Bowels of Christs Church and given occasion to that Deluge of Atheism and Profaneness and Impiety which hath over-spread the Face of it We put Affronts upon our Lawful Governours who should be in the place of God to us We give Scandal to all our Brethren that make a Conscience of living Peaceably and Piously And lastly as we offer a very fair Handle and Pretence to all Discontented and Factious men to Practice against the Best of Governments So we take the most effectual course to Ruine the Best Constituted Church in the World and with it the Reformed Religion in this Kingdom This now being the Nature and these being the Consequences of our Separation from the Established Church among us I leave it to any indifferent man to Determine whether any Doubt about the Lawfulness of our Communion though that Doubt be backed with greater Probabilities than do appear on the other side nay if you will with all the Probabilities that can consist with the nature of a Doubt can have weight enough to Ballance against such a Sin and such Consequences as Separation in our Case doth involve a man in I think there is no unconcerned Person but will pronounce that supposing where there are Doubts on both sides a man is to chuse that side on which there is the least appearance of Sin he is in this Case certainly bound to chuse Communion with the Established Church rather than Separation from it And that is all I Contend for But now after all this is said it must be acknowledged that if there be any man who hath other apprehensions of these matters and that after a Consideration of all things that are to be said for or against Conformity it doth appear to him upon the whole matter both more probable that our Communion is sinful than that it is a Duty and withal that to Communicate with us will involve him in a greater sin and in worse Consequences than to continue in Separation I say if any man have so unfortunate an understanding as to make such an estimate of things we must acknowledge that according to all the Rules of a Doubting Conscience such a man is rather to continue a Nonconformist than to obey the Laws of the King and the Church But then let him look to it for his acting in this Case according to the best Rules of a Doubting Conscience will not as I said before at all acquit him either of the Guilt or Consequences of Criminal Schism and Disobedience Supposing that indeed he is all along under a mistake as we say he certainly is and that there is nothing required in our Communion that he might not honestly and lawfully comply with as there certainly is not Unless in the mean time the man fell into these mistakes without any fault
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
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
which is likely to be so indeed Particular persons and Parties of men may mistake and it is notorious often do call that an Offence and Scandal which is not so But the whole Church is not so like to take cognizance of and be offended publickly with any thing which doth not deserve that name To which we may cast in this consideration to add weight to the other Every offence to a single private person or persons is not the sin of Scandal but no man can offend the Church of God but he sins grievously and is directly guilty of a great Scandal To conclude the sum of all that I would have considered on this Subject is this 1. That the fear of giving offence to weak and uninstructed persons by Conformity to our Church and returning to the Communion of it is causeless and wholly without any just reason Conformity being neither a sin nor causal of any nor any just cause of offence to any persons whatsoever 2. That it is now matter of plain and indispensible duty tied on us by the Commands and Laws both of God and man and therefore carefully to be done whatever may be the consequences of it to others That no snares or possibilities of offence to some men by it ought to supersede our care or can atone the sin of neglecting of it That we cannot forbear it now for fear of offending others without grievously offending our selves and our own Consciences 3. That our refusing to Conform will greatly offend the Church of God and indeed it doth so Not onely our own National Church of England but even all the Reformed Churches abroad too as may be seen in some Declarations of the Great men among them of late who cannot but grieve to see their great Bulwark and the whole Reformation so battered and weakned by this means and such great advantage thereby given to the great Enemy against it And therefore that this consideration ought to preponderate all the scruples and fears and fancied possibilities of giving offence to private persons of our own party by it And lastly that the effect of all this discover it self in a speedy conscientious care and honest endeavour to put a period to our causeless Separations and Divisions which are the onely true Scandal and giving Offence that I know of in this Case That we no longer go on madly to contrive our own Ruine in pulling down those Walls and making those Breaches in our Churches Banks at which the Enemy may and without Gods immediate interposition will suddenly break in as a mighty resistless torrent That we may all of us return to the Communion of the Church whose Doctrine is Orthodox and Government Apostolical and whose terms of Communion none of us dare term sinful In which we may acceptably serve our God and happily save our own Souls live happily and die comfortably and pass into the Communion of that Church Triumphant above which sings incessant Hallelujahs to God the Father God the Son and God the Holy Ghost To whom let us also give all possible praise and Thanksgiving both now and for evermore Amen FINIS BOOKS Printed for FINCHAM GARDINER A Continuation and Vindication of the Defence of Dr. Stillingfleet's Unreasoâ—ableness 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 Englands 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 Communions 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 â—he late Cases about Conformity recommended to the present Dissenters from the Church of England 14. An Argument for Union taken from the true interest of those Dissenters in England who profess and call themselves Protestants 15. The Case of Kneeling c. The Second Part. 16. Some Considerations about the Case of Scandal or giving Offence to Weak Brethren 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. A COLLECTION OF CASES AND OTHER DISCOURSES Lately Written to Recover DISSENTERS TO THE COMMUNION OF THE Church of England By some Divines of the City of London THE SECOND VOLUME LONDON Printed for T. Basset at the George in Fleet-street and B. Tooke at the Ship in St. Pauls Church-yard 1685. 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
shall endeavour through Gods assistance to lay some things together of which People of ordinary Capacities may make a Judgments and which may afford reasonable satisfaction to those that Doubt It is by some pretended That the Confessions of Sin in our Liturgie are too General and that there are many Particular Sins which ought to have been Distinctly Confessed of which there is no mention Now I desire those that are of this Mind to consider that there is hardly any thing in Publick Worship which requires more Caution and Prudence in the ordering of it than that Confession of Sin which is to be made by the whole Congregation It may be too Loose and General on the one side or it may be too Particular and Distinct on the other And it is not so very easie to avoid both inconveniencies The reason is because it should be framed as all may in good earnest use it notwithstanding the great Difference amongst those that are within the Communion of the Church the Sins of some of them being more in number and greater in kind and more heinously aggravated than the Sins of others There may be this Inconvenience in a Confession very short and General that takes in all that it does not so well serve to excite or to express that due sense of Sin nor to exercise that humility and self abasement wherewith we should always Confess our Sins to God On the other hand the Inconvenience of a very Particular and Distinct Confession of Sins will be this That some Sins with their Aggravations may be Confessed in the Name of the whole Congregation of which it is by no means to be supposed that all are guilty and then they who through the Grace of God have been kept from them cannot in good earnest make such Confession Now I take it that the Confessions of Sin in the Daily and in the Communion Service are so Judiciously framed as to avoid both extreams Since the Expressions have that large meaning as to take in the case of the best of the Congregation who may in good earnest use them and thereby joyn their Confessions with the rest And on the other side though they are General yet they are so affectionately amplified that they may well serve to express that Contrition which they ought to feel who labour under the Conscience of most hemous Sins and if they come duly prepared to excite a godly sorrow for Sin and to exercise a due sense of their own unworthiness of Gods Mercy And I desire those who are made to believe otherwise that they would venture to use their own Judgment in this matter and upon this occasion seriously to read over those two Confessions in our Lyturgie the one that which our daily Worship almost begins with the other in the Communion Office before the Absolution And then let them judge impartially as in the fear of God if I have not said the Truth But besides this the Confession of Sin after the Minister has recited each of the Ten Commandments is not only General enough to take in all sorts of Men but it seems also to be as particular as can reasonably be desired in a Congregation because it goes particularly through the Ten Commandments to which it has been usual to reduce the whole Duty of Man And this Method of Confession makes it easie for all that consider their own ways and endeavour to understand their own state to confess every one of them to God yet more particularly his known Offences in thought word or deed against each Commandment These things being well provided for to find fault with this part of our Service seems to argue want of Modesty or Judgment in those that do so They seem to believe ours to be amiss because they believe themselves could make a better But if for this and such like reasons they think fit to break Communion with us where will be an end of Division and Separation I hope none of our Brethren will say that they are not to make a Confession of their Sins in a way of expression that is possible to be mended lest by this means they should never make any Confession of Sin at all Since it may still remain a Question Whether this had not been better left out or that added after the best care is taken If a Form of Confession of Sins were Composed by the wifest of them I suppose he would pretend no more than that it is so Composed that Gods People might safely and profitably use it And this is that we may confidently say of the Confessions in our Liturgie and if this be truly said it ought to end the Dispute And yet they who Object the Generalness of our Confessions against us would not find it an easie task to give us better and more unexceptionable I may safely say they would not mend the Matter if they could prevail to have them as Particular as they are wont to be in the Prayers of some that separate from us For besides that they Confess against themselves so many particular Sins as many sincere Christians cannot in good earnest acknowledge themselves to be or ever to have been guilty of there is this other great inconvenience in such Confessions that gross Hypocrites and other Carnal Professors are very apt to go away with an opinion that their case is as good as that of the best since by these Confessions of Sin which describe their own case perhaps truly enough it should seem that the rest are no better than themselves We find it needful to warn those of our own Communion against such like mistakes though they are not in so much danger of falling into them We are afraid lest they that live in the Practice of wilful Sins should think the better of themselves because we do all confess that we have erred and strayed from Gods ways like lost sheep and have followed too much the devices and desires of our own hearts and have offended against the holy Laws of God and have left undone those things which we ought to have done and have done those things which we ought not to have done and that manifold sins and wickedness in thought word and deed have most grievously been committed by us against the Divine Majesty whereby we have provoked most justly his wrath and indignation against us But 't is not hard for us to shew these Men that all this may be truly Confessed by the sincere and godly as well as by Hypocrites that though the Confession does not mention a difference yet it does not imply that there is no difference between them but after all that these are in a state of Impenitence Damnation while those are in a state of Salvation who yet truely confess their Sins in the same General Words with the rest of the Congregation But there is greater danger of this self-flattery we are speaking of where the Common Confession of Sins is so very particular as some
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