which he may judge of what sort the action is This Measure is the Rule of Conscience and Conscience is no farther safe than as it follows that Rule Now this Measure or Rule of Conscience can be nothing else but the Law of God because nothing can be a Duty or Sin but what is commanded or forbidden by God's Law and that thing only is indifferent which his Law neither commands nor forbids Now by the Law of God which is the Rule of Conscience I mean God's Will for the Goverment of Men's actions whether declar'd by Nature or Revelation By the Law of Nature I mean those Principles of Good and Evil just and unjust which God has written in our minds and which every Man is naturally convinced of Some things are eternally Good as to Worship God c. and we know them to be our Duty others are eternally Evil and we know them to be Sins by the light of Reason and the Apostle saies the Gentiles had this Law written in their hearts But Christians have the Law of Revelation too contain'd in the Scriptures by which God do's not make void the Law of Nature but declare it's Precepts more certainly and accurately with greater strength and greater rewards and punishments than before By this also he has perfected the Law of Nature and obliged us to higher instances of Vertue and added some positive Laws as for instance to believe in Christ to pray to God in Christ's Name to be Baptiz'd and partake of the Lord's Supper Thus then the Natural and Reveal'd Law of God is the great Rule of Conscience Only we must remember that by the Law of Nature is to be understood not only the chief and general heads of it but also the necessary deductions from these heads and by the Reveal'd Law is to be understood not only express Commands and Prohibitions but also the necessary consequences of those commands and prohibitions So that whatever is by direct inference or parity of reason commanded or forbidden is a Duty or a Sin tho' it be not commanded or forbidden in the Letter of the Law And if it be neither commanded nor forbidden by the Letter of the Law nor yet by inference or parity of reason the thing is indifferent and we may do it or let it alone with a safe Conscience III. In the third place I must consider the power of Human Laws to oblige the Conscience for in a secondary sence they are a part of the Rule of Conscience by vertue of and in subordination to the Laws of God This I shall explain in four propositions First It is most certain that God's Law Commands us to obey the Laws of Men. For all Society is founded in this Principal Law of Nature that we must obey our Governours in all honest and just things Otherwise no State City or Family can subsist happily And 't is most evident that God Commands us in Scripture to Obey them that have the Rule over us and to be Subject not only for Wrath but also for Conscience sake So that a Man is bound in duty to obey Human Laws and consequently they are a part of the Rule of Conscience Secondly Human Laws do not bind the Conscience by any Vertue in themselves but merely by Vertue of God's Law who has commanded us both by Nature and Scripture to obey our Superiours Conscience is our judgment of our actions according to God's Law and has no Superiour but God alone but yet we are bound in Conscience to obey Men because therein we obey God Thirdly Human Laws do no farther bind the Conscience than as they are agreeable to the Laws of God so that when Men command any thing sinful we must not obey For God has not given any Man power to alter his Laws or impose any thing inconsistent with them Fourthly Tho' Human Laws generally speaking bind the Conscience yet I do not say that every Human Law tho' consistent with God's Law do's at all times and in all cases oblige every Man's Conscience to active obedience to it so as that he sins against God if he transgress it For then who could be innocent But First where the Public or some private Person shall suffer damage or inconvenience by our not observing the Law or Secondly where the Manner of our not obeying it argues contempt of Authority or sets an ill example there the transgression of a Human Law is sinful and not in other cases So that there are many cases in which a Man may transgress a purely Human Law and yet not be a sinner before God provided I say there be no contempt of Authority or ill example in it for either of these makes it a sin For this I insist upon that God's Law and the public good require that Authority be held sacred and therefore when Governours insist upon a thing tho' it be trifling or inconvenient yet we must not even seem to contest the matter with them provided it be not sinful For to affront their Authority or to encourage others by our example to do it is a greater evil to the public than our obedience to an inconvenient Law can easily be IV. I shall now consider the power of Human Laws to oblige the Conscience in the instance of Church-Communion And here I affirm That every Man is bound in Conscience to join with the Church establish'd by Law in the place where he lives so long as that Church is a true sound part of the Catholic Church and nothing sinful is requir'd as a condition of Communion with it For I have already shewn that Men are bound to obey Human Laws that are not contrary to the Laws of God and therefore they must obey in Church-Matters unless it can be shew'd that God has forbidden Men to make Laws about Religion which can never be done But farther I earnestly desire it may be well consider'd by Dissenters that we are all really bound by the Laws of Jesus Christ and the Nature of his Religion to preserve as much as in us lies the Unity of the Church which consists not only in professing the same faith but joining together in the same worship And therefore whoever breaks this Unity doth really transgress the Laws of Jesus Christ and is guilty of Schism which is so much caution'd against and so highly condemn'd in Scripture Those therefore who think they are no more bound to come to Church than to obey any common Act of Parliament are greatly mistaken because they break not only the Law of Man but the Law of God For tho' all the circumstances of Worship are Human Institutions yet the Public Worship it self under Public Lawful Governours is of Divine appointment and no Man can renounce it without sinning against Christ as well as Human Laws A Divine Law cloath'd with circumstances of Man's appointment creates another kind of obligation than a Law that commands a thing perfectly indifferent In the former case we must obey because 't is
and as to the truth of the Matters of fact she places it not in the testimony of any particular Church but in the Vniversal Tradition of Jews and Pagans as well as of all Christians II. I am to shew that a Church's symbolizing or agreeing in some things with the Church of Rome is no warrant for separation from the Church so agreeing The Dissenters tell us that those things which are indifferent in their own nature do cease to be indifferent and become sinful if they have been us'd by the Church of Rome For say they we read Lev. 18.2 After the doings of the Land of Egypt 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 Now not to insist on the vast difference of our circumstances from those of the Israelites I answer that it is an absurd thing to imagin that the Israelites were so bound up by God as to be obliged to be unlike those People in all their actions The things forbidden from verse 5 th to 24 th are not Indifferent but Incestuous Copulations and acts of uncleaness and God do's expresly enough restrain that general Prohibition to those particulars in saying v. 24 th Defile not your selves in any part of these things for in all these the Nations are defil'd which I cast out before you And they were therefore forbidden under the notion of things done after the doings of the Egyptians and the Canaanites because they were the doings of those People whom they were exceedingly prone to imitate even in their greatest immoralities If it be said that in other places God forbids the Israelites to imitate the Heathens in things of an indifferent nature I answer 1. That supposing this were so it do's not from thence follow that God intended to forbid such imitations in this place the contrary being so manifest as we have seen But 2. That God has any where prohibited the Israelites to symbolize with Heathens in things of a mere indifferent and innocent nature I mean that he has made it unlawful for them to observe any such Customs of the Heathens merely 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. 14.2 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 sees not that 't is unnatural and therefore not indifferent And as to the latter viz. the disfiguring of themselves by cutting off their Eye-brows this was not merely indifferent neither it being a Custom at Funerals misbecoming the People of God and which wou'd make them look as if they sorrow'd for the Dead as Men without Hope Another place is Lev. 19.19 Thou shalt not let thy Cattel gender with a diverse Kind thou shalt not sow thy Ground with mingled Seed nor shall a garment of linnen and woollen come upon thee But I answer that tho' these things are indeed indifferent in their own nature yet they are forbidden not because the Heathens us'd them but because they were mystical instructions in moral duties If it be objected also that God forbad the Jews Hos 2.16 17. to call him by the Name of Baali which was a very good Name and signify'd only My Lord because that word was abus'd in being the name of the Idol Baal I answer that God did not forbid the Name Baali because an Idol was call'd by that Name for he is call'd Baal in other places of the Hebrew Bible and also Jah which the Heathens us'd for an Idol but because the word Baali signifies an unkind husband or Lord such as Baal was to his worshippers whereas God Promises he wou'd be call'd Ishi that is a tenderly-loving husband for he design'd to be kind to his People Israel I shall add that Baalim in the next verse signifies Idols which God there Promises to destroy But suppose that God forbad the Jews to call him Baal for the future yet it might be because of their vehement inclination to the worship of Baal lest by using it they shou'd be tempted to worship him again whereas our Ceremonies were us'd by the ancient Fathers without any Superstition or Idolatry and we are not in danger of returning to Popery by retaining them Well but they say it appears from Scripture-precepts and examples that it is unlawful to symbolize with the Church of Rome in things that have been notoriously abus'd in Idolatrous and grosly Superstitious Services To this I answer First that it is not sinful to use those things which have been abus'd to Idolatry as I shall prove by these following Arguments 1. No abuse of any Gesture tho' it be in the most manifest Idolatry doth render that Gesture simply evil and for ever after unlawful to be us'd in the Worship of God upon that account For the abuse of a thing supposes the lawful use of it and if any thing otherwise lawful becomes sinful by an abuse of it then it 's plain that it is not in it's own nature sinful but by accident and with respect to somewhat else This is clear from Scripture for if Rites and Ceremonies after they have been abus'd by Idolaters become absolutely evil and unlawful to be us'd at all then the Jews sinn'd in offering Sacrifice erecting Altars burning Incense to the God of Heaven bowing down themselves before him wearing a Linnen Garment in the time of Divine Worship and observing other Things and Rites which the Heathens observ'd in the worship of their false gods If the Dissenters say they except all such Rites as were commanded or approv'd of by God I reply that such an exception avails nothing For if the abuse of a thing to Idolatry makes it absolutely sinful and unlawful to be us'd at all then it 's impossible to destroy that Relation and what has been once abus'd must ever remain so that is an infinite Power can't undo what has been done and clear it from ever having been abus'd And therefore I conclude from the Command and Approbation of God that a bare conformity with Idolaters in using those Rites in the Worship of the true God which they practise in the worship of Idols is not simply sinful or formal Idolatry For if it be God had obliged the Children of Israel by his express Command to commit sin and to do what he strictly and severely prohibited in other places In truth such a Position wou'd plainly make God the Author of sin 2. This principle intrenches upon Christian liberty if St. Paul himself may judge who tells us 1 Cor. 10.25 c. that to the pure all things are pure and affirms it lawful to eat of such things as had been offer'd up in Sacrifice to Idols and to eat whatsoever was sold in the Shambles And what reason is there why a Gesture
God's own Law in the other we only obey Man because God has obliged us in general to obey our Superiours God commands every Subject to pay tribute to whom tribute is due but Human Authority determines out of what goods and in what proportion he must pay Now because Human Authority interposes if a Man can by fraud detain the King 's right do's he incur no other guilt than breaking an Act of Parliament and being liable to penalties if he be detected Yes certainly for Tribute being injoin'd by God's Law the Man is unjust and breaks God's Law and his willingness to suffer the penalties do's not lessen his guilt The Case is the same as to Church-Vnity for tho' Human Laws prescribe particular circumstances and Forms of Worship yet God's Laws oblige us to keep the Unity of the Church as much as to pay the King his due And that Man that paies his just debts by such a method as the Law of the Land declares to be unjust may as well acquit himself from knavery before God as that Man that chuses a way of public worship in opposition to the Church-Laws can acquit himself of Schism before God Nay separation from the Church is so much against the Law of God that shou'd Human Laws grant a Toleration and call no Man to an account for separation from the establish'd Church yet such a separation wou'd still be a Schism and a Sin against God For no Human Law can make that Lawful which God's Law has forbidden V. It remains that I speak of the Authority of Conscience or how far a Man is obliged to be guided by his Conscience in his actions that is how far we are obliged to act or not act when we are convinc'd in our judgment that the action is commanded or forbidden by God Now our judgment concerning what God has commanded or forbidden or left indifferent is either right or wrong If right we are said to have a right Conscience if wrong we have an erroneous Conscience There is also a doubting Conscience when we know not well how to make any judgment at all but of this I shall Treat in another place Now if our Conscience or judgment be right that is according to God's Law without doubt we are forever bound to act according to it nor can we sin in doing so whatever the consequence be But the great question is what we must do when our Conscience is erroneous and mistaken and to answer this I lay down three Rules which I think may give any Man satisfaction First Where a Man is mistaken in his judgment even in that case it is alwaies a sin to act against it Tho' we take a sin for a duty or a duty for a sin yet so long as we are thus persuaded it will be a great crime to act against this persuasion Because by so doing we act against the best light we have at present and therefore our will is as wicked as if it acted against a true light Nothing but Conscience can guide our actions and tho' an eroneous Conscience is a very bad and unsafe guide yet still 't is the only guide we have and if we may lawfully refuse to be guided by it in one instance we may with as much reason reject it's guidance in all What is a wilful sin or a sin against knowledge but acting otherwise than we were convinc'd to be our duty Is not that Man thought sincere that acts as he believes and that Man an hypocrite that acts otherwise whether his judgment be true or false He who being under a mistake acts contrary to his judgment wou'd certainly upon the same temptation act contrary to it were his judgment never so well inform'd And therefore his Will being as bad in the one case as in the other he is equally a sinner as to the Wilfulness of the Crime tho' indeed in other respects there will be a great difference in the cases Shou'd a Jew turn Christian or a Papist turn Protestant while yet they believe their former Religions to be true we shou'd all believe them to be great Villains and Hypocrites because they did it upon base principles and in contradiction to their judgments Nay we shou'd all think more favourably of a Protestant that being seduced by a cunning Papist did really out of Conscience go over to the Romanists than of such Persons All this put together shews that no Man can in any case act against his judgment but he is guilty of sin in so doing Secondly The mistake of a Man's judgment may be of such a nature that as it will be a sin to act against his judgment so it will likewise be a sin to act according to it For that action is good and a duty which God has commanded and that is a sin which he has forbidden 'T is not our Opinion but his Law that makes things good or evil And therefore we shall be forever obliged to do some actions and forbear others whatever our judgment be because we cannot alter the Nature of things For if the Moral goodness or badness of actions were to be measur'd by Mens opinions then duty and sin wou'd be the most uncertain things in the world and what is good or evil to day wou'd be the contrary to morrow as any Man's opinion alters But such consequences are intolerable and therefore tho' a Man do's follow his judgment yet he may be guilty of sin and be damn'd for it too if his judgment lead him to act against the Law of God But it must be observ'd that I do not say that every action according to a mistaken judgment is sinful but that a Man's mistake may be such that it will be a sin to act either against it or according to it For a Man may often mistake and yet not sin provided his mistakes do not lead him to a breach of God's Law For First if a Man believe a thing to be commanded by God which is neither commanded nor forbidden as if he think himself obliged to Pray seven or three times a day he is certainly mistaken because God has bound him up to neither And therefore since God has not commanded the contrary he may safely act according to his mistake nay so long as his mistake continues he is bound to do so Secondly If a Man believe a thing to be forbidden by God which is neither commanded nor forbidden as if he think that God has forbidden him to play at Cards in this case he may follow his false opinion without sin nay he is bound to follow it Because since God has not forbidden it 't is no sin to follow his mistaken Conscience but it is a sin to act against it But then in other cases when a Man thinks that to be sinful or indifferent which God commands or that to be Lawful or a Duty which God forbids here the mistake is dangerous and it is a sin to act against his judgment or
Babes in Christ They have really better thoughts of themselves and wou'd be Leaders and Masters in Israel and prescribe to their Governours and give Laws to all others and prefer their own private Opinion which they call their Conscience before the Judgment of the wisest Men or the Determinations of their lawful Superiours And if in all Instances we shou'd deal with them as weak Persons turn them back to their Primmer advise them to learn their Catechism they wou'd think themselves highly wrong'd and injur'd But the truth is they ordinarily look upon their Opposition to the Orders of our Church as the Effect of an higher Illumination a greater Knowledge than others have attain'd unto They rather count us the weak Christians if some of them will allow us so much for otherwise if they do not take us for the weaker and worse Christians Why do they separate from us Why do they associate and combine together into distinct Congregations as being purer more select Christians than others Now tho' such Persons as these may be in truth very weak of little Judgment or Goodness notwithstanding this Conceit of themselves and their Party yet these are not by any means to plead for Indulgence under that Character nor to expect we shou'd forego our Liberty to please and humour them 3. Those who are really weak that is ignorant and injudicious are to be born withal only for a time till they have receiv'd better instruction but we cannot be alwaies Babes in Christ without our own gross fault and neglect Such as will not yield to the clearest reason if it be against their Interest or their Party can upon no account claim the privileges of Weak Persons Of these our Saviour had no regard who were so unreasonable and obstinate in their opposition Matth. 15.14 Not that I wou'd be so uncharitable as to condemn all or the generality of Dissenters for being Malicious and wilful in their dissent from us but however 1. I beg them to examine whether they have sincerely endeavour'd to satisfy themselves and have devoutly pray'd to God to free their minds from prejudices and corrupt affections for otherwise their Weakness is no more to be pity'd than that Man's sickness who will not tho' he may be cur'd 2. I must say that old and inveterate Mistakes that have been a 1000 times answer'd and protested against are not much to be heeded by us If People will by no means be prevail'd upon to lay aside their fancies they do not deserve that compassion which St. Paul prescribes towards Weak Brethren In matters of a doubtful or suspicious nature that are capable of being misunderstood and abus'd yet if there be no Moral evil in them and the doing of them is of some considerable consequence to me I am bound to forbear them no longer than till I have endeavour'd to inform them rightly concerning the innocency of my action and intention and given them notice of the evil that might possibly happen to them If I dig a pit or lay a block in the way whereby others not knowing any thing of it are hurt and wounded I am guilty of causing them to fall but if they are plainly and often told of it and yet will run into the danger they are then only to thank themselves Now if it be thus in Cases that are liable to suspicion and misinterpretation it holds much more in the Orders of our Church where the Offence arises not so much from the Nature of the Injunctions as from Mens gross ignorance mis-conceit or perverseness This shall suffice to shew what is the true Notion of a Weak Brother II. I am now to shew what it is to offend such an one People are generally mistaken about the sense of offending or giving offence For by it they commonly understand displeasing or grieving another and making him angry with them and so they think themselves bound in Conscience to forbear all those things which Godly Persons do not like or approve of or are contrary to their Fancy or Judgment 'T is true there is one place that seems to favour this conceit Rom. 14.15 If thy brother be grieved with thy meat now walkest thou not charitably But it must be observ'd that by grieving our Brother is not meant displeasing but wounding and hurting him and so it is us'd to denote that which causeth grief or sorrow and is the same with destroying and putting a stumbling-block or an occasion to fall v. 15 21. To be offended or griev'd is not to be troubl'd at what another has done out of pity and concern for his Soul but to receive hurt our selves from it being drawn or deceiv'd into some sin by it But because many well-dispos'd People do think that they must not do any thing which good Men are displeas'd or griev'd at I desire them to consider a few things 1. That to censure and condemn and be displeas'd with the actions of those that differ from them or refuse to join any longer with them in their separate Congregations is a great instance of peevishness and uncharitableness and is that very sin which St. Paul often warns his Weak Believers against viz. that they shou'd not rashly judge those who understood their Christian Liberty better than themselves At this rate any company of Men that shall resolve to quarrel with all that do not do as they do must oblige all to remain forever with them for fear of giving them offence If what I do is not evil in it self it cannot become such because another Man is causlesly angry with me for doing of it 2. They that pretend that this fear of offending that is displeasing their Weak Brethren hinders their complyance with the Church ought seriously to examine themselves whether it is not really only the care of their credit and reputation with that Party or else the securing of some worldly interest that keeps them from Conformity 3. If to displease our Weak Brethren were the sinful offending him condemn'd by St. Paul it wou'd prove an intolerable yoke upon Mens Consciences and beget such endless perplexities that we shou'd not be able to do any thing tho' never so indifferent with a well-assur'd mind since one or other will in this sense be scandaliz'd at it We shall anger some by doing others by forbearing and since those who call themselves weak are divided into several factions each condemning all the other 't is impossible for us to comply with any one of them but we shall thereby displease all the rest 4. If we do nothing which may displease our Weak Brethren we do submit our Judgments and Consciences to the conduct of the most ignorant and injudicious Christians and yield them that authority over us which we deny to our lawful Superiours And 't is strange that those who think their Christian Liberty so much violated by the determinations of their Superiours about indifferent matters shou'd yet suffer themselves to be thus ty'd up