Selected quad for the lemma: sense_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
sense_n	divine_a	reason_n	revelation_n	1,589	5	9.4988	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A39389	To en archy: or, An exercitation upon a momentous question in divinity, and case of conscience viz. whether it be lawfull for any person to act contrary to the opinion of his own consicence, formed from arguments that to him appear very probable, though not necessary or demonstrative. Where the opinions of the papists, Vasquez, Sanches, Azonius, &c. are shewed, as also the opinions of some Protestants, viz. Mr. Hooker, Bp Sanderson, Dr. Fulwood, &c. and compared with the opinions of others; the negative part of the question maintained; the unreasonableness of the popish opinions, and some Protestants, for blind obedience, detected; and many other things discoursed. By a Protestant.	Protestant.; Collinges, John, 1623-1690, attributed name.	1675 (1675)	Wing E718; Wing C5314_CANCELLED; ESTC R214929	62,722	96

Foundations of the Protestant Religion as it stands disting●●●●d from Popery This is that which Divines call The Judgment of Private and Practical Discretion Divines say there is 〈◊〉 ●●●●fold Judgment concerning Propositions of Truth 1. The first is Authoritative or Nomothetick This belongeth onely to God all the Men in the World all their Opinions and Arguments cannot add a Cubit to the stature of Truth nor make an hair of its Head either white or black 2. The Second is Ministerial and Declarative This belongs to the Church in the Scriptural Notion of it The Apostle therefore calls her the Pillar and ground of Truth She keeps the Sacred Records and when there is a doubt about any portion of them Ministerially declareth what is the Truth 3. The third Divines call The Judgment of Private and Practical Discretion This Protestants say belongs to every private Christian who by his own Conscience using the best means first which he can for the Information of it is to determine as to his own belief and Practice what is true and Lawful And indeed here lyes the great difference betwixt the Religion of Papists and Protestants The Papists will not allow the Private Christian to Judge of Truth with reference to his own Practice but Obligeth People To believe as the Church believeth and defendeth Blind Obedience to Superiours as Christians Duty They make it Lawful for Men contrary to their own Judgment and the Dictate of their Conscience from intrinsick Arguments to Practice according to the Opinion of one or more Doctors and necessary to Obey all the Decrees of the Popes and the Commands of Superiours if things be not apparently and demonstratively unlawful It may be one Adrianus or another or two may enter their dissent to this Brutish Doctrine but they do generally agree it and this is Fons Origo mali The very first thing to be taught their Prosilytes as silence was in the School of Pythagoras Hence their vernacular Bibles are burnt and all their other Doctrines are easily swallowed The necessity of an Infallible Judge is Concluded c. § 15. On the other side it is essential to a Protestant to be free and in Bondage to no Man nor as to his Practice to be guided by any but God alone and his own Conscience and his Superiours Commanding him what his own Conscience first perswades him to be necessary or at least Lawful He who denyeth this and pretendeth to hate Popery doth but abhor Idols and commit Sacriledge Nay he doth indeed but deny that in words which he owneth chuseth and preferreth nor is it possible there should be greater Factors for Popery in any place than those that perswade Men that it is Lawful for them under what Circumstances they can Imagine to Act contrary to the Opinion of their own Conscience and do what from which to them seem very probable seems utterly to swerve from that which is right to use Mr. Hooker's Phrase § 16. Now let any pluck up this Flood-gate of Private and Practical Discretion and tell us what should hinder most of the absurd Doctrines of Popery coming in upon us like an overflowing Flood if ever we should be so miserable which is not a thing impossible as in Future Ages to have a Superiour that shall Command the receiving of them or Practice according to them As to the falshood of most of them we have but a Moral certainty at least our perswasion must be Judged no more according to the Modern Divinity for how can we be Infallibly and demonstratively certain in things as to which so great a part of the World is of another mind and so many such Learned Men as Bellarmine Stapleton and an hundred more who dissent from us Besides as we shewed before we are told that in Disputable things we can have but an Opinion of one part And this we take to be a Meditation worthy of those Honourable Persons amongst the Nobility and Gentry of England who have shewed their Zeal so much of late against that Religious Pageantry of Rome If any doubt whether Christians have such a Priviledge given them by God as this of Private and Practical Discretion let them consider those Texts 1 Thes 5.21 1 John 3.1 usually quoted for it and but Read what Bishop Davenant in his most Learned Treatise De Judice Normâ fidei and all other Protestant Writers have said for it Whoever plucks up this Hedge we understand not if he doth not feel the Romish Serpent quickly biting him by the heel and we cannot but think that Man will be Cursed that goes about to remove this Land-mark of all Protestants and cry out to our Superiours in the words of Solomon Prov. 22.28 Remove not the Ancient Land-mark which our Fathers have set § 17. We might further add that the admission of this absurd and brutish principle that if a thing be not apparently and demonstratively sinful it is Lawful for Men to Act contrary to the Opinion of their own Consiciences representing it to them from Arguments which seem to them very probable unlawful All Books of Topicks as to Matters of practice all Argumentative Books in Divinity would be of no Use at all but noxious and mischievous rather Yea the Holy Scriptures themselves would be of very little or no use for the use of Argumentative Discourses in any Science or Discipline is to make a proposition either Demonstrative or Probable to us Yea this is the use of the Holy Scriptures as they inform us of Truth Things are Demonstrable to us upon the Evidence of Revelation Sense or Reason indeed the first is improper for the certainty arising from Divine Revelation is called Faith not Demonstration or Demonstrative certainty but it is quiddam majus what is certain to us upon a certainty of Faith or Demonstrative Reason is not so Ordinarily in a moment This Certainty is Ordinarily hatched out of Topicks and most Propositions even of Divine Truth usually at first appear to the Soul probable before they appear indubitably certain The Gray hairs of that other certainty which is distinguished from Moral Certainty rarely grow up in a Night This being granted which every one experienceth Suppose but a Convocation or a Colledge of Superiours to determine de Omnibus agendis of all things to be Religiously Observed and done To what purpose should any read or study any Books for the disquisition of Truth as to any part of a Proposition for when he hath done so long as the thing to be done appears to him but probably Lawful or probably unlawful which it must do before it appears to him indubitably and out of all Question the one or the other he is according to this Opinion bound in Conscience if he be by Superiours Commanded to do quite contrary to what he Judgeth Lawful if he be not indubitably certain it is unlawful What need he Read and study the Scriptures as to Matter of Practice When he hath found

Now we would ask how we shall know what the Will of God in his Word is but by the Judgment of our particular consciences at last be the Will of God in it self what it will The Will of God to us must be Interpreted as to Practise by our own Judgments and apprehensions Hence Dr. Ames saith well that he who acteth against his Conscience Interpretatively acts against the Will of God And Filiucius saith right such Actions declare that Men chuse and love sin For so far as they know what is sinful they do sin and if they miss of sinning in their Actions it is but as the blind Man hits the Crow there 's no thank to them out of choyce they sin It is involuntarily if they do that which is right No Action materially good can possibly be so formally if done contrary to the Judgment of our Conscience because it is impossible it should have the concurrence of the Will whiles the Practical Conscience faith it ought not be done The Will cannot will what it judgeth evil it may indeed be mis-guided by the Understanding but it cannot will evil sub ratione mali and so consequentially cannot will what the Conscience telleth the Man he ought not to do So as indeed it is but a Natural Principle That the Practical Conscience is and must be the Proximate Rule of our actions Filiucius saith right that the Law of God and the Law of Nature respecteth our Actions as they are free which they cannot be unless they proceed a Principio cognoscente from a knowing Principle within our selves We proceed to a second Argument § 3. That Principle which allowed perverteth the whole Order of Nature in the operations of a Reasonable soul must be false But this opinion That it is Lawful for us to act contrary to what appears to us Lawful from probable arguments perverteth the whole Order of Nature in the Operations of a Reasonable Soul Ergo. The Major needeth no proof to any who will believe that it is not the Will of God a Man should be Metamorphosed into a Beast So that all our business must be to prove the Minor To which purpose let us but take a view of the Noblest Empire in the World I mean that of Reason in Man and Observeth the Order which God hath by the Law of Nature prescribed by which Reason sitting as a Queen should Rule there The Will is the great Minister in this State the great wheel which by its imperate Acts moveth the whole Man The Object of it is Good or Evil about these two it is Exercised chusing the former refusing the latter and then Commanding all the Inferiour Faculties of the Soul and Members of the Body to move according to its Judgment and Choice The Philopsoher telleth us The Will is blind and that its work is onely to keep its Seat and Judge and Command The Understanding serves it with the Notion of things that takes cognisance of them discerns and represents them as true or false whether reference to Speculation or Practice The Understanding in its work is served by the Interior and exterior Senses So then this is the Order of the Ceasonable Soul in Man whereas all Objects are either Sensible Rational or Spiritual The exterior Senses the Eye and Ear c. bring Intelligence of sensible Objects The Fancy Memory and Imaginative Power bring Intelligence of Objects proper to their Sphear The Understanding takes notice of all Propositions thus brought in to it discerneth them and judgeth concerning them whether they be true or false according to Principles of Sense Reason and Revelation according to the variety of the Matter upon this the Will maketh its choice Those which the Understanding discerneth true and good it willeth and chuseth what it discerns false and evil it refuseth nillete and rejecteth and accordingly Commandeth the Soul to believe or not believe to love or hate to desire or fl●e from whatsoever the Understanding discerneth and judgeth evil and noxious Here now is the Government of a Reasonable Soul Now let us Observe how guilty the Principle we oppose is of Treason and Sedition against this Noble Government of the Soul instituted in it by God himself We cannot make a better Judgment than by putting a particular case Suppose this the Proposition It is or it is not Lawful for Persons once Ordained to be re-ordained The Case now is to be Judged in the Court of Reason 〈◊〉 Senses bring in this Proposition as what they have some where seen or heard to be brought into Practice Upon this the Court of the Reasonable Understanding taketh cognisance of it The Understanding discerns it a Proposition relating to Instituted Worship and that the Truth concerning it is to be determined not from Principles of Sense or Principles of Natural Reason but from Scripture and Reason working upon things Revealed and comparing things Spiritual with Spiritual The Eye is therefore employed to Read what can be The Ear to hear on all sides what is spoken about it The Fancy or Imagination is also set on work to find out Mediums to prove the one part or other and so the thing cometh with all these helps to be Discoursed by the soul within it self Then the Vnderstanding discerneth and judgeth which part of the Proposition is true and consequently fit to be Practised which is false and fit to be rejected It either concludes one part Demonstratively and certainly false or probably and in all likelihood false or else it hangs in equilibrio not knowing what to determine In the present Case we suppose the Vnderstanding to bring in its report in this Sense As to this Practical Question Whether it be Lawful for them who by Ministers have been Ordained and made Ministers to be re-ordained and made first Deacons then Priests by Bishops I have done my best to try the Truth or Falshood of either part The Eyes and Ears have given me an account of what they have seen in any Books or heard from any Discourses of Learned Men about it The Fancy hath also been employed to weigh and consider Propositions to consider Arguments brought by others on one side and the other and devise Mediums for one part and for the other Now upon my utmost Judgment of the thing from weighing Arguments on all sides it is not demonstratively certain that this Proposition is false That Persons once Ordained may not be re-ordained and that a Submission to such a re-ordination would be sinful But it doth appear to me very probably so I cannot Answer the Arguments which I have thought on or others have brought to prove it so and though I dare not arrogate infallibility to my self and determine the Arguments I have for the Negative unanswerable yet I can find no Answer I can acquiesce in and so far as I can judge it is sinful and will certainly issue in horror of Conscience or Eternal Damnation or both without pardoning Mercy Now the business is

Foundation of the Popish Religion which almost wholly owes it self to Blind Obedience Reader we shall not complement thee Read acquit or condemn us as thou seest cause upon weighing what we say and judge what is against us praeter merum imperium convitia Whether it be lawful to act contrary to an Opining Conscience CHAP. I. The Question shortly stated The terms Conscience and Opining opened The Various complexions of Conscience arising from the different mediums by which light shines into a soul about a Practical Proposition The terms of Faith Science Opinion Doubting Suspition Scruple opened The true notion of a Fixed Conscience an Opining Conscience a doubting and a Scruputons Conscience The Schoolmens Notion of an Opinion The Question fully stated The method propounded for handling it SECT I. THe question is shortly and plainly this Whether without sinning against God a man can act contrary to the dictate of his own Conscience though but Opining By Conscience not to trouble our Reader with the various Notions and Homonymies of it which have little relation to our intended discourse we mean That Judgement in man by which he determineth concerning good or evil as it relateth to practice according to the Dictate of Natural or enlightened Reason We think it well described by the Schoolmen Judicium quo aliquid bonum esse vel malum judicamus Sanehes in Op. mor. lib. 1. cap. 9.1 Reason is a noble faculty in man by which he discourseth Conclusions from Principles and these either Connate or Natural or acquired from exercise reading and comparing things with things Now the work of Reason is when a practical Proposition is exhibited to it to sit as a Judge upon it enquiring either upon the Truth or falshod of it by comparing it with these Principle hence it maketh up a Judgement whether the Proposition be true or false good or bad This Judgment Divines call Judicium singulare or Judicium conscientiae practicum The Judgment of Conscience or Conscience it self Sect. 2. This Judgment is made up by certain Mediums or arguments which do not in all cases shine with the like degree of light upon the soul for as there is a difference in Propositions some are True some are false of those which are some are necessarily so So as it is impossible they should be false Some are contingently so which are true but it is possible they may be or might have been false as now That God is good is a Proposition necessarily true That Peter was good is true but no more than contingently so for he was bad So there is likewise a great difference in the minds assent to Propositions some it agrees to some it denieth Of those to which it agreeth There are some to which it agreeth firmly and fixedly without the least doubt of them Now these are either such as are Propositions of faith being things plainly revealed in the word of God or Matters evident to sense Thus every man will agree the fire is hot and that the Sun shines at noon day or else such which have a certain cause of their truth which we can see The Assent of the mind to the first is called Faith which is the minds assent to the truth of a Proposition upon the authority of God revealing it The Assent of the mind to the two latter is called Science Now there are other Propositions for which the soul can have no such Mediums as these to discern them by But either some Humane Authority or some probable Reason The Assent which the mind giveth upon either of these accounts is called Opinion which is but the Judgement of Conscience from probable Arguments usually called dialectick arguments for there are not many things capable of demonstration § 3. Hence the certainty of the Mind as to the Truth or Falshood of any proposition is 1. Either Supernatural from Divine Revelation or 2. Natural from the Evidence of Sense or Demonstration or 3. Moral from probable Authority or Arguments But now in regard of the differing Force of Arguments and the variety of them for or against the same proposition This assent is capable of various degrees and may variously be incumbred A Christian may give some Credit to a proposition yet have some scruples about it which like little stones in the shooe from whence the term is borrowed may trouble his Practice Or may have some doubts whether the thing be true or no Or I may have an Opinion that is verily judge the thing to be so or not so § 4. The Philosopher tells us that in Moral things a Moral certainty is enough to Act upon and indeed it must be so for as to most things of particular practice we can neither be Naturally nor Supernaturally ascertained Not Naturally because we cannot see the certain Causes Not Supernaturally for it had been impossible that God's Word should have set every individual Man a particular Rule for every individual Action In these Cases therefore as we said a Moral certainty is ground enough for Action which is or may be consistent with some Scruples or Fears For Example suppose this the Question Whether a Man be sit to Receive the Supper of the Lord It may be he cannot fully satisfie himself but he may have some fears and jealousies and Scruples of the Reasonableness of which he can give himself no very good Account but yet he finds so much ground to conclude he is that he is Morally certain In this case he is bound not to omit it Suppose one sick of a Quinsie or Pleurisie or some other Disease usually Mortal without timely Bleeding and application of means He is not Mathematically or Demonstratively certain that he shall dye if he doth not use such means his Natural strength may Conquer it but he may be Morally certain and so Obliged to Act. Whether a Man may be said to know that of which he is onely Morally certain is a little Velitation among Critical Philosophers Aristotle tells us that what falleth under Science considered as an Habit of the Mind must be something demonstrable but this is onely a strife about words § 5. Much in the present Debate depending upon the term Opining the fixing of the true Notion of an Opinion or at least such a one as we understand in the Question is of great Consequence It is sometimes used to signifie a sudden and rash assent of the Vnderstanding to a proposition But in this sence we have nothing to do with it 2. It is taken for the assent of the Mind to one part of a proposition as true yet not without fear of being mistaken 3. But Thirdly in which sence we use it It is also taken to signifie the Souls assent to a proposition upon probable Arguments That is such Arguments as do not demonstrate the thing to the Soul so as to put it out of all possibility of doubting but make it appear very like to be true Probabile est quod quum certum

non sit magis tamen videtur esse verum vel falsum saith the Logician Aquinas in his Summs Qu. 1. Art 4. Describes an Opinion according to the Second Notion thus It is saith he the Act of the Vnderstanding inclining to one part of a Contradiction not without a fear of the Truth of the other part Valentia as he is quoted by Sanchez Op. Mor. l. 1. c. 9. will allow no Man any longer to keep within the Latitude of on Opinion than while he perswades himself that although he hath probable Reasons to judge this or that Lawful or unlawful yet they are not such but if he could hit on it might be Answered by himself or some other But yet neither Sanchez nor Vasquez nor Azorius will allow this streightned Notion of an Opinion though we cannot see how they will avoid it till they put cum formidine alterius out of their own Descriptions for what should he who openeth be afraid of but that his Arguments are Answerable So as in effect they all agree That a Man perswaded upon probable Arguments of the Lawfulness or Unlawfulness of a th●ng no longer Opineth than he feareth his own Reasons may be Answered But to us Be it so or so it is all a case we call that an Opinion which is The Assent of the Mind to a Proposition upon Arguments not Demonstrably but Probably certain And we have here the Advantage for if we prove it not Lawful to act against an Opining Conscience in their sence they will yield it much more Unlawful to act against an Opining Conscience in this sence which with them is a fixed Conscience either in good or evil And that it is unlawful to act against such a Conscience Vasquez is so confident that he Disputeth against Almainus and Andreas de Castra who had reserved unto God a Liberty to dispense with a Man acting against a fixed Conscience so as that a Man may do it without guilt and contends That God himself cannot dispense with it because it is an acting against the Law of Nature Vesquez in 12. Disp 61. Cap. 2. § 6. There are besides Opinion some other terms Divines take Notice of Suspition which they make the Jealousie of the Mind or some light Inclination to one part yet without an Assent Aquinas makes it the Younger Daughter of an Opinion and calls it an Opinion with a very light Evidence Doubting is another which they make the Pendulousness of the Mind as to the Lawfulness or Unlawfulness of a thing after Debate Now from this variety of Propositions and the variety of Mediums through which a Light comes into our Minds discovering the Truth or Falshood of them and the variety of our assent consequent to such Mediums arise the various Notions of a fixed Conscience A Doubting Conscience An Opining Conscience A. Scrupulous Conscience These are but the several Complexions of Conscience caused from the variety or degree of that Light in which it seeth a Proposition as true or false § 7. If the Matter in Question be of that Nature that it thinks it can find a plain and particular Evidence for it in Scripture or can judge of it by the certain Evidence of sence or see it in the certain Causes the Conscience is fixed either truly or erroneously and as to this thing beareth the Name of a fixed Good or Erroneous Conscience as it is or is not deceived in its apprehension of the Medium If the Matter of the Proposition or that part to which the Soul adhereth be of that Nature that the Soul cannot find a plain Revelation in Scripture nor discern it by sense nor see it in the certain necessary Causes but hath many probable Arguments rather for the one part than the other Whether it thinks these Arguments Answerable or no or thinks that possibly they may be Answerable but as yet it can see no Answer to them which it judgeth sussicient this now is an Opining Conscience If the Mind be equally ballanced on both sides with Arguments that it hath as much to say why such a thing should be Lawful as why it should be unlawful or unlawful as Lawful this is now a Doubting Conscience and rarely happeneth to a knowing and intelligent Soul If the Soul be afraid that this or that is not Lawful or fancieth that such a thing is Lawful but hath none or if any very light Reasons for it possibly such or such Men say so or such or such Men do it or do it not this is a Suspitious or Scrupulous Conscience § 8. In short in Order to a Man's spotless walking There are infinite Propositions to be weighed God hath hung up a Beam called Conscience in every individual Soul in Order to the weighing of them upon this Beam is written 1 Thes 5.21 PROVE ALL THINGS hold fast that which is good The Weights which God hath allowed us to weigh things by are Divine Revelation Demonstrations Evidence of Sence Topicks or more probable Logical Arguments made up from Logical places and Conclusions formed from the comparing of Rational and Spiritual things 't is Evident with Rational or Spiritual things more Evident when any of these fully weigh down the Souls assent there 's a Fixed Conscience When they equally incline the Balance one way or another there is a Doubting Conscience When they strongly incline the Soul more one way than another ther 's an Opining Conscience When they cause a very light inclination of the Soul to one part rather than to the other there is a Suspitious or a Scrupulous Conscience § 9. Now what the Duty of Christians is under these various Complexions of Conscience is a point which hath justly exercised valuable Divines of all perswasions for as we are capable by any of our Actions to incurr the wrath of God so as to them generally our Consciences are Complexionated one way or another for if we Act we either do a thing being fixedly perswaded it is Lawful or unlawful or doubting whether it be so or strongly inclined to think it is so or so or suspecting and being scrupulous Concerning a Conscience that is fixed in that which is truly good none ever doubted of the Lawfulness of Acting according to it or unlawfulness to Act against it But concerning Conscience in all the other Circumstances there have many Questions been started as to the Truth in which the World is very far from being Universally agreed Whether a Man may Act against a Conscience fixed in an Error is a Question spoken to by most School-men and Casuists It is usually said that such a Conscience doth Ligare non Obligare It is not our business to dispute how well that distinction Ordinarily Father'd upon Durandus is worded but we do not remember we ever met with any Deliberate Divine that would affirm That in case a Man were fully though falsly perswaded that this or that thing was unlawful to be done yet he might Lawfully do it Though indeed if the

should be an end of them without the end of some of them the Order of Justice cannot bold nor Kingdoms and States be preserved As now suppose a Controversie about the Title of the Supreme Magistrate c. There must be an end to these and it must be by one parties submission to the final decision of some power Men may do it without sinning against God And it is the will of God even written in Nature that they should do it Suppose there be a plea betwixt Man and Man concerning a right of Inheritance and they have had a long Suit about it there must be an end to this Controversie and the end must be by a submission of one party to the final decision at least of the Supreme Court of Justice in a Nation Beyond which lyes no appeal What further can be done unless this private Person should take up Arms against this Court and so disturb all Civil Orders nor shall he who suffers in this Judgment need fear sinning against God by parting with his Inheritance no Law of God Obligeth him to keep it He is before this Judgment at perfect Liberty to part with it and by this Judgment it becomes necessary We fear that we shall anon find the Text Deut. 17.8 Concerning such Controversies and so nothing to the purpose in our Case 2. But there are other Controversies which are in Matters of meer Speculation or Practice Some things there are which are meerly Speculative which infer no Practice which side soever we take as now Whether the Virgin Mary lived and dyed a Virgin c. For these Controversies we know no need of an end of them nor why they should be Controversies Men may Opine one thing or another in them without hazard to their Souls There are other Controversies in Religion which being determined require of us either an Act of Faith and Assent from us as our Duty or more i.e. the guidance of our Conversation according to our belief And these again are either such as are Fundamentally necessary to Salvation or such as are not so necessary As now suppose that Whether Jesus Christ be the Eternal Son of God is Matter of Controversie betwixt the Arrians the Socinians the Orthodox Whether a Man may Lawfully adore the bread in the Eucharist is Controverted betwixt the Papists and Protestants It is necessary that the Magistrate or Church should put an end to these Controversies at least as to the evulging of them because there is a part in them so necessary to be believed or done as Men's Salvation dependeth upon it immediately and those entrusted with the Charge of Souls stand Obliged by the Law of Charity as much as in them lyeth to obviate their eternal Ruine But there are a third sort of Controversies in Religion which relate to Practice in those things where Gods Word hath left nothing particularly and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 determined Such Controversies there ever was and ever will be in the Church But as it is onely the Pride and Corruption of Men which makes these Controversies for why should any Quarrel with his Brother for using his own Latitude where God hath determined nothing So there is no need to put an end to them but onely to Mens Lusts and Passions in the Arguing of them For there is no hazard of Salvation either one way or other We dare be bold to say that the silly humour of some judging it necessary that all Men should say It is a Hen-Sparrow when some think it a Cock-Sparrow Or write it when some think it is better wrote yt Or that all Men should keep and Easter-day such a day when as others think it not the right hath been the cause of so much sin and wickedness so much Blood and Cruelty as all that these Humorists are worth is no way able to recompence either to Gods Glory the Churches Peace or the Profit and Advantage of Princes so infinitely hindred by it § 7. We suppose Peace will be urged as necessary to put an end to Controversie And is there no other way to obtain it but by Mens doing quite contrary to what they Judge right The Apostle hath shewed Men a nearer way to it if their Lusts would let them see it Phil. 3.15 16. What a strange fancy it is that there should be no way to Peace but what is impossible viz. Mens perswading themselves That it is the Will of God that in such Cases they should do whatsoever Men determine though in their own Opinion it seems quite to swerve from what is right As if there were no way to keep a Man from burning his shins but by pulling down a Chimney and setting it further off This is a sad end His Most Excellent Majesty hath shewed them a quicker End viz. Not Enacting the doing of such things of those who judge them Vnlawful but leaving them to their Liberty and onely requiring as the Apostle in such Cases Rom. 14. 2. That he who eateth should not despise him that eateth not nor he who eateth not despise him that eateth Could our Brethren be quiet and not represent us to the World as Factious Persons Schismaticks unreasonable ungovernable Dunces we wonder what hindred Peace now § 7. But saith Mr. Hooker and he is the Delphick Oracle it seems in this Case He must needs perswade himself That it is the Will of God That in Litigious and Controverted Cases c. he should submit to the Decision of his Superiour though in his own Opinion it seems quite to swerve from that which is right We would fain know how he should perswade himself of this This perswasion cannot be of Faith for where doth the Word of God speak a tittle to this sence It speaks the contrary Rom. 14.5.23 How shall we know a thing to be either according contrary to the Will of God Certainly we must know it from Nature or from Divine Revelation Doth the Light of Nature shew us any such thing Indeed in Controversies of a Civil Nature the Determination of which the Light of Nature shews us must be by Superiours and where a submission is necessary and not to be avoyded without disturbance of Polities and all Order of Justicer The Light of Nature may shew us some such thing But certainly where the Light of Nature sheweth us no need of a Controversie nor of determining it if there must be one it can shew us nothing as to the Will of God for a submission to such Determination Nor indeed is it pretended and it were strange if it should when the Schoolmen determine That Acting against an erroneous Conscience much more Opining is against the Light of Nature This piece of the Will of God then which we must saith Mr. Hooker perswade our selves of must be from Revelation and that is either New some Enthusiasm or Old which is the Word of God Where shall we find such a piece of the revealed Will of God in Scripture Mr. Hooker tells

Prayer to be imposed upon all Ministers in Mr. Cottons Discourse against Set Forms Against the Ceremonies in Dr. Ames his Fresh Suit In the Dispute against English Ceremonies in Mr. Bradshaw's Books Against Re●rdination in R. A. his Letter to a Friend Printed 1661. and A Serious Review of Presbyters Re-ordination by Bishops Printed about the same time As also in Altare Damascenum upon the two first Heads Besides many other Books they could never yet see Answered What shall these Men do You hear what they say you say nothing but rail at them and conclude them peevish wilful ungovernable without Answering an Argument but taking it for granted as a late Triumphant Author that they think all Lawful onely Scruple offending their Party Will you tell them as you do p. 61 62 63. That Melior est conditio possidentis He that is in possession hath the bettter Interest and that he is possessed of his Right in Commanding is unquestionable and therefore they are bound in Conscience to stand to his Command till it be evinced that his command is of a thing that is sinful or above the Sphear of his Authority Alas they will presently grant it you with this difference They will tell you they will not say their Superiour Commands things which are apparently and demonstrably sinful But the things Commanded are to them sinful being such as their Consciences so Judge and that from Arguments which appear to them highly probable enough to beget in them a Moral certainty You gag them at the Press what you can but they have found times from thence to tell you what those Arguments are what is their Answer You are a Company of peevish factious Schismatical Fellows Is this Righteous dealing Or had not these kind of Answerers think you need of some more Righteousness than their own works to justifie them They will presently grant That the Superiour is possessed of an unquestionable Right to Command in such things as God by his Word hath not forbidden either by some particular word or by some general Law requiring every one to use their Power derived from God for good for Edification not for Destruction to use it so as not to destroy Souls for whom Christ dyed And to all such Commands they profess themselves ready to stand And further when you have proved that either the Word of God or right Reason hath put the Superiour in a possession of a larger Right than this is They will tell you That the King of Spain is in a possession too of a Right to Command so was Queen Mary here in England who Commanded many things she or her Bishops or both which Cranmer Hooper Ridley Latimer c. in their Consciences judged unlawful how was it Evinced to use your term to those and other good Men that what these their Superiours Commanded was unlawful The Bishops affirmed them Lawful so that according to the Modern Divinity the unlawfulness of them could be but the Sufferers private Opinion and that against the Church Did these Men sin in not doing the things required Did they dye as Fools dye Or did they do their Duty in chusing to Suffer rather than Act If the latter why may not others do the same Will you say because those things to the Martyrs were evinced unlawful We ask how were they evinced Did they plead Scriptures against those things and do not the Non-Conformists do so now Had they not a far greater appearance of Scripture for Transubstantiation in that Text This is my Body than any can bring for a Liturgy a Surplis c. Will you say the Scriptures now pleaded are wrested and mis-understood Would not Bonner and Gardiner say so then Shall the Magistrate now determine betwixt the Bishops and dissenters And had not Queen Mary the same Right Or at least she and her Parliament See where you are Doctor Who shall Judge whether your opposite Objections be Scruples Doubts or Opinions Shall the Supreme Magistrate or the Bishops Had not Queen Mary and her Bishops the same Right And then all those Holy Men dyed as the Papists say as Rebels and Traytors and those things were all suffered in vain You have no way to avoid this unless you will say Queen Mary and her Bishops were no Superiours for you know Quod convenit alicui quâ tali convenit omni tali But it may be when this Doctor writes next he will think himself Obliged to speak strictly and not confound a Doubting Scrupulous an Opining Conscience Any School-man or Casuist will shew him the difference betwixt them § 18. The last we shall take Notice of speaking in this Case is one who calls himself Ireneus Freeman in a Treatise stiled by him The Reasonableness of Divine Service p. 33. he telleth us right That there are but a few Actions but are disputable and In disputable Actions we must Obey our Superiours Commands This is now right down that is There are very few Actions but let our own Consciences say what they will to us against them if our Superiours Command us to do them we must do them Or say what they will for them if the Magistrate Command us to forbear them we must forbear them In p. 15. Those he had to deal with having said that it was not clear to them That it was Lawful for all Persons at all times to limit themselves in Praycr by any stinted Forms This acute Author roundly tells them The Lawfulness of an Action is not clear to him that doubteth of its Lawfulness not being certain that the Action is Lawful nor yet certain that it is unlawful But yet such a Man is bound to do the Action when Commanded by the Magistrate The Reason is Because it is certain the Magistrate is to be Obeyed Commanding Lawful things But it is uncertain whether the thing be unlawful it is safer to Obey doubtingly than to disobey doubtingly Now in these words there is either a Notorious Cheat or else a Potion of Divinity which taken down will bring up all our Protestant Religion If there be a Cheat it lyes in those words Doubting and Certain A Conscience may be said to be doubting either strictly or largely Strictly Bishop Sanderson tells us what a doubting Conscience is when the Mind is pendulous the Scales hang even a Man hath as much to say for the Lawfulness of an Action as for the unlawfulness Largely One that is meerly Jealous Scrupulous or Suspitious of an Action may be said to doubt 2. One that is not fully perswaded a thing is unlawful but upon Arguments which he judgeth very probable he believeth it unlawful Again a Man may be certain of a thing by a certainty of Faith believing a Divine Revelation or by a certainty of Sense or arising from Demonstration 2. A Man may be Morally certain and of most things we have no other certainty than this latter If this Author had not designed to cheat his Reader he would have spoken distinctly