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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
Sins are not thus Deadly For in many things we offend all and as for those Sins which the Regenerate commit through Humane Frailty only they are not thereby put into a state of Damnation And though all Sin be in its own Nature Deadly or Damnable yet through the Mercy of God and the Merits of Christ Sins of meer Infirmity are not imputed to true Believers and therefore not Deadly to them But there are some Sins so heinous that he who Commits them is thereby put into a Damnable state and till he recovers himself by true Repentance and Actual Reformation he cannot upon any good ground promise to himself that the wrath of God does not abide upon him And 't is of such Sins as these that this passage is to be understood as appears by Deadly Sin being added to Fornication From Fornication and all other Deadly Sin Good Lord deliver us So that this Petition seems to be of the same Nature with that of the Psalmist Keep back thy Servant also from presumptuous sins let not them have dominion over me then shall I be upright and I shall be innocent from the great Transgression Psal 19. 13. Whereas therefore these Words of the Litany seem to suppose that some Sins are not Deadly we should be very unjust to make such a Construction of them as if they implyed that some Sins are in their own nature Venial and so slight that they will be forgiven without any consideration for as I have shewn we may hold that distinction which the Words suppose and yet retain that Protestant Doctrine that no Sin is forgiven but through the Mercy of God and the Merits and Mediation of Christ Again some are offended with our praying against Sudden Death But why should we not by Sudden Death understand our being taken out of this World when we are not fit to die For sometimes a thing is said to be Sudden to us when we are not prepared for it And in this sense can any good Christian find fault with the Petition But suppose that by Sudden Death we mean what is commonly understood by it that is a Death of which a Man has not the least warning by Sickness Are there not reasons why even good Men may desire not to die suddenly May they not when they find themselves drawing towards their end by their good Instructions and Admonitions make impression upon their Friends Companions and Relations to the bettering of them May not their Counsels be more effectual with them than ever they were before And is it not reasonable to believe they will be so As for themselves may not the warning they have of Approaching Death be improved to make them more fit to die than they were in their perfect health In a Word he that thinks himself to have sufficiently perfected holiness in the fear of God and not to stand in need of those Acts of Self-Examination Humiliation and Devotion by which good Men improve the warnings of Death which Mortal Sickness or Extream Age gives them let him suspend his Act and refuse to joyn with us when we pray God to deliver us from Sudden Death There is yet another Objection which I should not have named but that some of the Dissenters who seem to understand very little of Religion by making it have it often in their Mouths That is when we pray to be delivered by the Mystery of Christs Holy Incarnation c. by his Agony and Bloody Sweat by his Cross and Passion c. and by the coming of the Holy Ghost They say some of them that this is Swearing some that it is Conjuring and I know not what For which sayings favouring of great profaneness they ought to be severely rebuked and that is all the answer they should have were it not that some of them may be grosly ignorant of the true Sense of these Petitions And therefore I say that they might easily suppose if they would give their Minds to it that we pray to be delivered through the Saving Efficacy of Christs Incarnation and Passion c. And yet I do not take this to be the principal meaning or that which was intended For I conceive that to be this that when we say By the Mystery of thy Holy Incarnation and by thy Cross and Passion c. Good Lord deliver us we implore Christ who has already shewed such inestimable goodness towards us by taking our Nature to his Divinity to Die upon the Cross to be Buryed to Rise again to ascend into Heaven and there to intercede with the Father for us and by sending the Holy Ghost to qualifie the Apostles for their great Work of carrying the Word of Salvation into the World I say we implore him who hath already done such mighty things for our Salvation and we plead with him by that goodness which he hath already given us such great demonstrations of by those wonders of Mercy that he hath wrought for us that he would now go on to deliver us by his powerful Grace from these Evils which we pray against And this is so reasonable so devout and affectionate so humble and thankful a way of Praying that I am sorry that any who call themselves Believers should be so ignorant as not to understand it or so profane and unlike what they pretend to be as to deride it Though God does not need to be put in mind of his former benefits towards us yet it is fit for us to mention them in our most earnest Prayers not only because we are to make a grateful acknowledgment of them to him but likewise because by this means we encourage our selves to ask in Faith since he who unaskt hath done such great things for us will not fail upon our earnest and humble prayer which himself also hath required to give us all other good things that we need and to deliver us from all real evils of which we are in danger I proceed next to consider whether there be any just cause to find fault with the reading of the Apocryphal Lessons in our Church And 1. It must be acknowledged by those who allow the usefulness of Sermons and Catechising in the Church that those Chapters may be read in the Church though they are not Divinely inspired Writings since no sober Man will pretend that the Minister Preaches or Catechises by Inspiration But if other good Instructions may be read or recited in the Church besides the Word of God it self why may not some Lessons out of the Apocryphal Books be read which contain excellent Rules of good Life and Exhortations and Encouragements to Virtue and Piety especially since those writings were greatly esteemed by the Church in its purest Ages when they and other Humane Writings were also Publickly read as well as the Holy Scriptures 2. If it be said that those Chapters of Canonical Scripture which are omitted in the Calendar would be more profitably read instead of the Apocryphal Chapters it ought
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
they are necessitated to depart from ours and set up Churches to themselves according to the best Models that every one is able to draw This is certainly a very dangerous adventure and can never be justified by such Arguments as are produced which might be all easily answered upon the general Principle I have already mentioned That none of the things against which the exceptions are made are Unlawful and therefore they cannot make our Communion Unlawful and if that be not Unlawful it must be Unlawful to divide from it This might be Reply enough to the most if not all the Objections that are or can be brought But because it may be thought more satisfactory by some I shall give a particular though very short Answer to those I have now proposed The First and Great thing that is objected against our Church is prescribing a Liturgy or Set Form of Prayers to be constantly used in Publick Worship This is that which has raised a great many Clamours Peoples minds have been extreamly incensed and exasperated against it it has been cryed out upon as Idolatrous Popish Superstitious and I know not how many hard Names it has been called But I am glad to find the temper of our Dissenting Brethren altered so much for the better We do not now so often hear those bitter exclamations of Rome and Babylon Baal and Dagon The Common Prayer is not esteemed such an abominable thing as some ignorant and heady Zealots were wont to count it Among those that have but too openly favoured the Separation the more considerable part both for Number and Sobriety do not only allow that a Form is Lawful but will freely acknowledge that ours is so and therefore they will admit of Occasional and if so I cannot see what can withhold them from a full and constant Communion with us Certainly that which is Lawful once or twice must be Lawful always However we may take some delight to see the old Heats in any measure abated and that the least advances are made towards Peace God grant that this Concession may prove a step to a happy and perfect Reconcilement And so I hope it may for our Brethren cannot be any longer offended with those Forms in which they do sometimes join themselves Nay those that have not yet proceeded so far but are still afraid of being Defiled in our way of Worship cannot have any colour to Condemn it for being a Form The Jews had Forms in their Publick Assemblies which this notwithstanding were duly frequented by our blessed Saviour He delivered a Form himself in his Sermon on the Matth. 6. 9 c. Mount and taught the same again to his Disciples afterwards Luke 11. 2. and Commanded them to use it Some Forms were received very early among the Ancient Christians who have been followed in this by all the Protestant Churches but the Lawfulness of them was never called in question heretofore For how could it since they are no were Forbidden Or if a Command be thought requisite to make them Lawful the other way is no more Commanded than this and therefore upon that Principle they must be both equally Lawful or Unlawful So that if any Prayer be Lawful a Form must be confessed to be so The Arguments in this case are so Convincing that there are few now but that will readily agree that a Form may be Lawful in it self but then they think it ought not to be Imposed because of some Inconveniences which they conceive do attend it And they are principally these Two the One that there may be some particular Emergencies which cannot be provided for by a Set Form The other that it is an hinderance to the Spirit of Prayer The first of these has very little difficulty in it The ordinary wants and necessities of Christians are always the same and we may Petition to have them supplied in the same Words and for other things it may generally be foreseen that they may happen sometimes and sutable Forms may be composed to be used upon such Occasions Where these cannot be fitly applied peculiar Offices may be set forth as has been usual in such cases Where the exigency is great and will not admit of so much delay as is necessary for that the Minister is at Liberty to use his own Conceptions But this cannot be urged for the Exclusion of a Liturgy It were very unreasonable to deprive the Church of known and approved Forms and leave her to the mercy of extemporary Effusions only for the sake of a few Contingencies which may happen but very rarely if at all in a whole Age. The other thing that is alledged would be more considerable if it were really true That Forms did indeed hinder the Spirit of Prayer But this they do not For it is a gross and carnal Mistake to imagine that the Spirit of Prayer can consist in a readiness of Expression and a natural or acquired volubility of Tongue Arts and Accomplishments whereof many Wicked men have been great Masters and wherein as many Good ones may be very deficient The Spirit of Prayer must be acknowledged to be nothing else but an inward good and pious Disposition of the Soul wrought in us by the Grace of God an unfeigned Humility and Abhorrence of our selves when we confess our Sins and beg for Pardon an affectionate Sense of our Wants when we ask for all things necessary both for this and the other Life an holy exultation of Mind when we offer up our Praises and Thanks for the Blessings we have received a full Resignation of our Concerns to God's disposal and a Dependance upon his Promises for the granting our Requests when we have made our Addresses unto him These are the great Indications of the true Spirit of Prayer and these are so far from being Hindered that they may be very much Helped and Advantaged by a Form A man questionless may be more seriously Affected in all these respects and say Amen more heartily to a Form of sound Words which he hath known and considered before than he can to some uncertain Expressions which he never heard nor thought on and possibly may not so well understand nor be satisfied in when he hears them The perplexity and doubtfulness of Thoughts which must often arise when we would join in Prayers we are unacquainted with is directly Opposite to that Faith and Assurance with which we should Pray and can scarce be prevented but by a well digested and studied Form that may be Weighed and soberly Assented to by those that are required to join in it But some think that it may be manifest from Experience that Forms are a hinderance to the very inward Spirit of Devotion They have found their Affections very cold and flat at our usual stated Forms of Prayer but when they hear a man Pray without a Form they are mightily ravished and almost transported and this difference of Temper they observe in themselves has
the words are these I believe our Saviour ever since his Ascension hath had in some place or other a Visible true Church on Earth I mean a Company of Men that profest at least so much as was necessary to Salvation and I believe there will be some where or other such a Church to the Worlds end This is his answer to that Popish Question about the perpetuity of the Visible Church whereby it appears that this Company of Men he speaks of are not single and scattered Individuals which are no Visible Church but he means a Formed and Visible Church-Society and his Answer is true though there were never a sound Church in the World For a corrupt Church which retains all the Essentials of Faith and Worship is a true Visible Church and this is the meaning of Mr. Chillingworth's Answer but how this proves that there is no need there should be any Visible Church at all or that Christians are not bound to actual Communion with the sound and Orthodox Church wherein they live is past my understanding At the same rate you defend your self against me in your Preface by the Authority of those two excellent Persons the Dean of Canterbury and the Dean of Saint Pauls Dr. Stillingfleet had asserted That all things necessary to Salvation are plain in Scripture to all that sincerely endeavour to understand them hence S. C. infers That the Governours of our Church have no Authority to teach Truth or to condemn Errours and all the People are become Prophets and all their Articles Answer to several Treatises p. 272. c. Constitutions and Ordinances have been composed and enjoyned by an usurped Authority and if he had added as he might have done with the same reason And all Church-Communion is needless it had been exactly what you aim at in this Citation The Dr. vindicates his Doctrine from such a wild Fanatical inference 1. By shewing the intention of those Principles which was plainly to lay down the Foundations of a Christian Faith living in the Communion of our Church And if this was his design as he says it was certainly he could neither before nor after say any thing which should overthrow the necessity of Church-Communion and then he can say nothing against me nor for you 2. He distinguishes between the necessaries to Salvation and to the Government of the Church that is what is necessary for every Christian considered in p. 275. a private Capacity to know and believe to make him capable of Salvation and what care the Church must take to instruct the ignorant to satisfie the doubting to direct the unskilful and to help the weak and not barely to provide for necessity but safety and not barely the safety of particular persons but of it self which cannot p. 276. be done without prudent Orders setting the bounds of Mens Employments c. i. e. though it is possible for a private Christian who lives alone and has the use of the Bible in a Language which he understands by diligent and honest inquiries to find out so much truth as is absolutely necessary to Salvation yet this does not overthrow the necessity of a setled Ministry and a regular Authority in the Church all this I firmly assent to and yet do as firmly believe the necessity of Church-Communion when it may be had upon Lawful Terms and so does this Reverend Person also and therefore I cannot look upon your alleadging his Authority against me to have any other design than to affront the Dean for his excellent Pains in vindicating the Communion of our Church and shewing people the Evil and Danger of Separation He has sufficiently declared what his Judgment is about Separation and therefore I need not concern my self any farther to prove that he is not my Adversary in this Cause At the same rate you deal with that great Man as you deservedly call him Dr. Tillotson who says I had much rather perswade any one to be a good Man than Preface to be of any Party and denomination of Christians whatsoever for I doubt not but the belief of the Ancient Creed provided we entertain nothing that is destructive of it together with a good life will certainly save a Man and without this no man can have reasonable hopes of Salvation no not in an Infallible Church if there were any such to be found in the World How does this oppose me who assert the necessity of Church-Communion Is the Catholick Church then and the Communion of Saints no part of our Creed and is not Schism destructive to these great Articles of our Faith or is Schism which is the breach of Christian Charity properly so called which is the Love and Charity which the Members of the same Body ought to have for each other and consists in Unity and Communion consistent with a good Life if by that we understand an Universal goodness of which Charity is the most vital and essential part But do you indeed think Sir that the Dean believes a Man may be saved without Communion with any Church when it may be had without Sin when in the very next Paragraph he so earnestly exhorts them to Communion with the Church of England I can easily forgive your usage of me since I find you cannot Read the best Books without perverting them and that you never spare any Mans Reputation to serve your Designes for your Reproaches and your Commendations are but different ways of abuse though I confess I should rather chuse to be reproached by you Your last Consideration is whether it be a good way to convert Schismaticks to prove that Schism is as Letter 3. p. 29. Damning a Sin as Murder or Adultery Truly Sir St. Cyprian and St. Austin and all the Ancient Fathers of the Church thought this a very good way for they insisted very much upon this Argument and if Men will not forsake their Schism though the Salvation of their Souls be endangered by it I am apt to think that no other Arguments will perswade them And if this be true as I verily believe it is and shall believe so till I see the Third Chapter of the Vindication of the Defence of Dr. Still fairly answered I think it the greatest Charity in the World to warn Men of it and if it should prove by their perverseness no Charity to them it is Charity to my own Soul and delivers me from the guilt of their Bloud whether such Doctrine Preach Men into or out of the Church And now for your parting Blow Certainly if our Church required Conformity to its Rites and Ceremonies as necessary to Salvation It could not blame Men for dividing from it Yes certainly upon such a Supposition the Church could and would blame Men for their Separation though it may be they might not deserve to be blamed for no doubt the more necessary the Church judges her Constitutions the more she will blame Dissenters But he who tells us or he
is P. 4. The Case of Mixed Communion This is a On the Sacrament p. 235. Plea saith Mr. Vines that is plausible to easy Capacities because it pretends to set up Holiness of Ordinances and People but what the eminent Dissenters do utterly disclaim Mr. Vines saith it is Donatistical and others as Mr. Brinsley and Mr. Jenkin that it 's the common Brinsley's Arraignment p. 37 38. Jenk on Jude v. 19. Baily's Disswasive p. 22. Sacril desert p. 97. Plea or Pretence which for the most part hath been taken up by all Schismaticks in defence of their separation from the Church and therefore that it is necessary the People should be untaught it as Mr. Baxter doth advise And as they do disclaim it so they declare that those that separate upon this account do it very unjustly (a) (a) (a) Cawâ—rey's Reformation promoted p. 131. that the Scandals of Professors are ground of mourning but not of separation (b) (b) (b) Manton on Jude p. 496. that there may be a sufficient cause to cast out obstinate Sinners and yet not sufficient cause for one to leave the Church though such be not cast out (c) (c) (c) Vines on Sacrament p. 242 Platform c. 14. § 8. V. Cotton's Holiness of Church-Members p. 2. That the suffering of prophane and scanlous Livers to continue in the Church and partake in the Sacrament is doubtless a great Sin yet the Godly are not presently to separate from it There is saith Mr. Burroughs (d) (d) (d) Gospel-Worship Serm 11. p. 242. an error on both sides either those that think it concerns them not at all with whom they come to the Sacrament or those that if they do what they can to keep the Scandalous away and yet they should be suffered to come that they themselves may not come to partake of it This both the Presbyterians and Independents so far agree in and for this their Opinion they urge several Arguments First It 's no where commanded but is a vain Arg. 1 pretending to Holiness above Rule and Example saith On Sacrament p. 246. p. 31. Mr. Vines It 's no Duty as he elsewhere saith because there is no Command it 's no Duty and therefore we read not this word come forth in any of the Epistles written to the seven Churches against which Christ saith he hath such and such things They that lived in the Impurer are not called forth into the Purer but there are Promises made to them that keep themselves pure and Duties injoined them toward the impurer part For we may not make every Disease the Plague Shall the Sons of God the Angels forsake the Lord's Presence because Satan came also amongst them c. The Provincial Assembly of London doth affirm In the Vindicat. of Presbyt Govern p. 134. Brinsly's Arraign p. 47. Church of Corinth was such a profane mixture at the Sacrament as we believe few if any of our Congregations can be charged withal And yet the Apostle doth not perswade the Godly Party to Separate much less to gather V. Firmin's Separat examined p. 40. Cawdrey's Church-Reformat p. 71. a Church out of a Church From which Consideration Mr. Tombs concludes * * * Theodulia p. 74. Sure it can be no sin in any Person to join in the True Worship and Service of God with any if he have no command to withdraw himself from that Service because of their Presence nor Power to exclude them and yet is bound to the Duties there performed Nay they do not only plead that it 's not commanded but that it 's forbidden and unlawful So Mr. Hooker To separate from a Church because of the Survey of Discipline Pres A. 3. Platform c. 14. §. 9. Sin of some Worshippers is unlawful So the New-England Ministers do declare As separation from a Church wherein prophane and scandalous Livers are tolerated is not presently necessary So for the Members thereof otherwise worthy hereupon to abstain from Communion with such a Church in the participation of the Sacraments is unlawful Secondly They plead that the communicating in Arg. 2 God's Service with open Sinners whom the Godly in some of our Assemblies are enforced to communicate with is not sufficient to make such prophane Grave Confut. part 3. p. 53. or to pollute to them the Holy Things of God So the old Non-Conformists So Mr. Vines The presence On the Sacrament p. 242. p. 31 32. of wicked Men at God's Ordinances pollutes not them that are neither accessary to their Sin nor yet to their presence there This Mr. Burroughs disclaims Gospel-Worship Serm. 11. p. 236 237. You are not defiled by the meer presence of wicked Men in the Sacrament for that is a meer deceit and gull that some would put upon them that differ from them but thus are you defiled if you do not your Duty and the uttermost you are able to purge them out But if this be done according to the Power and Capacity Persons are in it 's universally granted that the Innocent shall not suffer for the Nocent So Mr. Ball The Precept of debarring scandalous Offenders Tryal c. 10. p. 191 205. bindeth them to whom God hath given this Power and them only so far as God hath put it in V. Jean's Discourse on the Lord's Supper Rutherford's right of Presbyt their Power But God regularly doth not leave that Power in the hand of one single Steward or some few private Christians And if the Steward or one or few private Christians cannot debar the unworthy from the Lord's Table it is manifest the Ordinance of God is not defiled to them by the presence of the Wicked whom they desire to reform or expel but cannot because Power is not in their hand to do it lawfully This they confirm 1. From the Examples of the Prophets and good Men who of old joined with Grave confut Part 3. p. 53 55. Ball 's Tryal p. 211. Platform c 14. § 8. Blake Vindic. p. 235. many that were notoriously stained with gross Sins from the practice of our Saviour that communicated with such in the publick Service of God from the practice of Christians in Apostolical Times all which the old Non-Conformists do insist upon This is also pleaded by those of New-England and others This would make all the Sins of the Congregation Christian Directory p. 747. V. Non-Conformists no Schismaticks p. 16. to be ours So Mr. Baxter If you be wanting in your Duty to reform it it is your Sin but if bare presence made their Sin to be ours it would also make all the Sins of the Assembly ours From all which it appears that their sense is that scandalous Members are no sufficient Reason for Separation for that must be either because it 's commanded in Scripture or that those that do communicate with such are in so doing corrupted also but if neither of these be then we may
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
touch viz. the unclean and abominable Practices that were us'd by the Heathens in the Worship of their Gods It 's call'd by the Apostle in another place the unfruitful Eph. 4. 11 works of darkness and again thus describ'd by him it 's a shame to speak of those things that are done of them in secret These they were not to touch to have no fellowship with them in but rather to reprove them that is in judgment to condemn them by words to reprove them in conversation to avoid them But now because Christians are not to communicate with Heathens in their filthy mysteries nor to partake with any sort of wicked Men in any Action that 's Immoral does it therefore follow that they must not do their duty because sometimes it cannot be done but in their company Must they abstain from the Publick Worship of God and their Lord's Table to which they are commanded because Evil Men who till they repent have nothing to do there rudely intrude themselves May they not joyn with bad Men in some cases where it cannot be well avoided in doing a good Action because they must in no case and on no account joyn with them in doing a sinful one Because they have omitted their Duty must I neglect mine Because they sin in coming unpreparedly must I sin in not coming at all Will their sin be any plea or excuse for mine If I Communicate with them will their unworthiness be laid at my door If I separate because of that shall they answer for my contempt as well as for their own prophanation of it No surely every Man shall bear his own burden The soul that sinneth it shall dye The Ezek. 18. 20. second is that Text Obj. 2. In the Revelation Come out of her my people that ye be not partakers of her sins and that ye receive 18. c. 4. not of her plagues Answ This place is most certainly to be understood of Idolaters and according to most Interpreters of the Roman Idolatrous Polity and is a command to all Christians to forsake the Communion of that Church lest they endanger their own salvation by Communicating with her in Masses and other Idolatrous Worship And if this be the true sense of the words it abundantly justifies our Separation from the Roman Church But affords not the least plea for Dissenters to separate from ours unless any of them are so hardy as to say that there is none or but little difference betwixt the Church of Rome and the Church of England But blessed be God we have a Church reform'd from all her Superstitions that retains nothing of hers but what she retains of the Gospel and the Primitive Church Here 's no drowning Religion in shadow and formality nor burying her under a load of ritual and ceremonial Rubbish nor dressing up Religion in a flanting pomp to set her off or a gaudy garb to recommend her much less in such fantastical Rites such antick Vestments and Gesticulations that may justly render her ridiculous and contemptible but her Ceremonies are few and decent countenanc'd by Primitive Antiquity and very much becoming the gravity and sobriety of Religion Here are no Half-Communions no more Sacraments thrust upon us than our Lord himself instituted and yet those left whole and entire for our use and comfort that he did no Prayers in an unknown Tongue which the votary neither minds nor understands no praying to Saints or Angels no adoring Images Pictures and Reliques no worshipping the Creature besides or more than the Creator which 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 they do who in all their publick Offices of Devotion for one Prayer to God have order'd ten to be made to the blessed Virgin Here 's no Doctrine obtruded on our Faith that 's contrary to reason nay to sense to all our senses no Practices allowed that are forbidden by God no Pardons to be bought no Indulgences to be purchas'd no expunging any one Commandment out of the Decalogue or contriving arts and devices to make void the rest but as her Devotions are pure and spiritual having God and him only for their object so her Doctrine is found and orthodox having Christ for its Corner-stone and the Prophets and Apostles for its Foundation A Church that needs no counterfeit Legends no incredible Miracles no ridiculous Fables to promote her veneration whose security lies not in the Peoples ignorance but in their inlightned understandings that can defend it self without the help of spurious Authors or corrupting the words and sense of Authentick ones a Church that dares to be understood and is sure the more she 's lookt into the more to be embrac'd and admir'd And I would to God 't was as easie a matter to clear every one of her Members from Vice as it is her Constitution from Corruption But let those that stand take heed lest they fall and be sure to sweep their own door clean who are so apt to throw dirt in the faces of their Fellow-Christians St. Paul's advice is that every Man should examine himself and I am much mistaken if spiritual pride a rash and censorious judging of our Bretheren be not as great a crime as some of those that are lookt upon to be of so polluting and infectious a nature in other Men I need not say how directly oposite this Pharisaical humour is to that humility meekness and self-denial that the Gospel of our Saviour injoyns how unsuitable to the temper of all good Men who are more apt to suspect and accuse themselves than others who the more holy they are the more sensible of their own imperfections How contrary to the example of our blessed Lord who balkt not at any time the society of Publicans and sinners who when he knew what was in Man and who it was that should betray him yet admitted Judas into the number of his Disciples and familiarly converst with him And yet how fully it answers to the Spirit and Genius of those ancient Schismaticks the Novatians and the Donatists Might I stay to run the parallel both those Schisms and this amongst us would be found to begin on the same Principles slackness of Discipline in the Church and corruption in Manners To be carried on by the same pretences zeal for purity and fear of pollution to spring from the same bitter fountain pride and arrogance But I speak not this to excuse our selves or to recriminate them My hearty Prayer to God is that all Isarel may be saved that they who dissent from us would now at last lay aside all passion and prejudice all groundless scruples and pretences and come in and joyn their forces with our Church against the common Adversary And that we who profess our selves Members of the Church of England would be extreamly careful for the honour of our Religion for the preservation of our Church for the recovery of our straying Bretheren for whose sakes in some cases we are bound to lay down our lives
If it was not made use of in all Sacred matters where Eire was to be used yet it was most Holy and when Atonement was to be made by Incense the Coals were to be taken from thence (c) (c) (c) Lev. 16. 12 46. and therefore surely was as peculiar to those Offices as the Incense and to be as constantly used in them as never to be used in any other And it will yet make it more evident if it be considered 4. That just before there is an account given of the Extraordinary way by which this Fire was lighted for the Text saith there came out a Fire from before the Lord and consumed upon the Altar the Burnt-Offering c. and immediately Lev. 9. 24. follows the Relation of Nadab's miscarriage Now for what reason are these things so closely connected but to shew wherein they Offended For before it was the Office of Aaron's Sons to put Fire upon the Altar and now through Inadvertency or Presumption Attempting Lev. 1. 7. to do as formerly when there had been this Declaration from Heaven to the contrary they Suffered for it 5. It appears further from the conformity betwixt the Punishment and the Sin as there came Fire from before the Lord and consumed the Burnt-Offering to teach them what Fire for the future to make use of So upon their Transgression there came out Fire from the Lord and devoured them to teach others how Dangerous it was to do otherwise than he had Commanded So that it seems to me to be like the case of Vzzah when 1 Chron. 13. 7. 10. Ch 15. 2. they carried the Ark in a Cart which the Levites were to have born upon their Shoulders and it was not an Offering without a Command but otherwise than Commanded that was their Fault and without doubt they might with no more Offence have taken what Fire they would for their Incense than what Wood they pleased for their Fire if there had been no more direction about the one than the other But to proceed in the other places of Scripture where this Phrase of not Commanded is to be met with it s also so applied to things Forbidden as to what is called Abomination which is the Worshiping of Strange Gods the Sun Moon and Stars and Deut. 17 34. Jer. 7. 31. Ch. 19. 5. Ch. 32. 35. the Host of Heaven To the building the High Places of Topheth and the burning their Sons and Daughters in the Fire to Baal and causing them to pass through the Fire unto Molech Of such and the like its said which I Commanded them not neither came it into my mind And lastly it 's applied to the false Prophets who spake Lies Jer. 29. 22 23. in the Name of the Lord in which case the meer being not Commanded nor sent by him is in the nature of the thing no less than a Prohibition it being a Belying God though there had been no such place as Deut. 18. 20. to forbid it Now if so much stress was to be laid upon the Phrase as the Objection doth suppose and that we must take a Non-Commanding for a Prohibition we might reasonablly expect to find the Phrase otherwhere applied to things that were no otherwise Unlawful than because not Commanded but when it s always spoken of things plainly Prohibited it s a sign that it s rather God's Forbidding that made them Unlawful than his not Commanding But it may still be said why should then the Phrase be used at all in such matters and why should the case be thus Represented if not Commanded is not the same with Prohibited To this I answer 1. That all things Prohibited are by consequence not Commanded but it follows not that all things not Commanded are Prohibited If it was Forbidden to Offer Strange Fire then it was a thing not Commanded for otherwise the same thing would be Forbidden and Commanded but if it had been a thing not Commanded only it would not by being so have been any more Prohibited than the Wood that was to be burnt upon the Altar Now it s with respect to the former that things Prohibited are call'd things not Commanded and not with respect to the latter 2. Indeed the Phrase not Commanded is only a Meiosis or Softer way of speaking when more is understood than express'd A Figure usual in all Authors and Languages that I know of and what is frequently to be met with in Scripture Thus it 's given as a Character of an Hypocritical People they choose that in which I Delight not Isai 66 3. 4 Ch. 65. 3 12. which is but another Word for what was said in the verse before their Soul Delighted in their Abominations or Idolatries And when the Apostle would Describe the evil state of the Gentile World by the most Hainous and Flagitious Crimes such as Fornication Covetousness Rom. 1. 28. 29. Laciviousness Envy Murder and what not he saith of these that they were things not Convenient And it is as evident that the Phrase not Commanded is of the like kind when the things its applied to are alike Notorous and Abominable But it s further Objected that it s said in Scripture Object II ye shall not add unto the Word which I Command you neither Deut. 4. 2. shall ye diminish ought from it And that our Saviour condemning the Practices of the Scribes in this kind concludes In Vain do they Worship me Teaching for Matth. 15. 9. Doctrines the Commandments of Men. From whence it may be collected 1. That all things not Commanded by God in his Word are additions to it 2. That such additions are altogether unlawful To this I reply Answer 1. If they mean by adding to the Word the doing what that Forbids and by diminishing the neglecting of what that requires as the next Words do intimate and is plainly the sense otherwise (a) (a) (a) Deut 12. 32. when it s no Deut. 4. 4 6. sooner said What thing soever I Command you Observe to do it but it immediately follows thou shalt not add thereto nor diminish from it it s what we willingly condemn according to that of our Saviour Whosoever shall break one of these least Commandments and shall teach Matth. 5. 19. Men so he shall be called least in the Kingdom of Heaven 2. If they mean by adding the appointing somewhat else instead of what God hath appointed as Jeroboam did the Feast of the Eighth Month and by diminishing the taking away what God hath Commanded as Ahaz did the Altar and Laver c. This is what we condemn 2 King 16. 14 17. also and do blame in the Church of Rome whilst they feed the People with Legends instead of Scripture and take away both that and the Cup from the Laity 3. If they mean by adding the adding insolent expositions to the Command by which the end of it is frustrated This our Saviour condemn'd in the Pharisees Why
is properly no Conscience unless by Accident we have nothing here to do with them but shall reserve them to another place Here we suppose that we do make a Judgment of the thing that is we are perswaded in our Minds concerning the goodness or badness of this or the other Action And that which we are to inquire into is how far that Judgment binds us to Act according to it Now if our Conscience be a Right Conscience that is if we have truly informed our Judgment according to the Rule of Gods Law It is beyond all Question and acknowledged by all the World that we are in that Case perpetually bound to Act according to our Judgment It is for ever our Duty so to do and there can no blame no guilt fall upon us for so doing let the Consequence of our Acting or not Acting be what it will So that as to a Right Conscience or a well informed Judgment there is no dispute among any sort of Men. But the great thing to be inquired into is what Obligation a Man is under to Act according to his Judgment supposing it be false supposing he hath not rightly informed his Conscience but hath taken up false measures of what God hath Commanded or Forbidden Now for the Resolution of this I lay down these Three Propositions which I think will take in all that is needful for the giving Satisfaction to every one concerning this point First Where a Man is mistaken in his Judgment even in that Case it is always a Sin to Act against it Be our Conscience never so ill instructed as to what is Good or Evil though we should take that for a Duty which is really a Sin and on the contrary that for a Sin which is really a Duty Yet so long as we are thus persuaded it will be highly Criminal in us to Act in contradiction to this persuasion and the reason of this is evident because by so doing we wilfully Act against the best light which at present we have for the direction of our Actions and consequently our Will is as faulty and as wicked in consenting to such Actions as if we had had truer Notions of things We are to remember that the Rule of our Duty whatever it be in it self cannot touch or affect our Actions but by the Mediation of our Conscience that is no farther than as it is apprehended by us or as we do understand and remember it So that when all is done the immediate Guide of our Actions can be nothing but our Conscience our Judgment and Perswasion concerning the Goodness or Badness or Indifferency of things It is true in all those Instances where we are mistaken our Conscience proves but a very bad and unsafe Guide because it hath it self lost its way in not following its Rule as it should have done But however our Guide still it is and we have no other guide of our Actions but that And if we may lawfully refuse to be guided by it in one Instance we may with as much reason reject its Guidance in all What is the Notion that any of us hath of a Wilful Sin or a Sin against Knowledg but this That we have done otherwise than we were convinced to be our Duty at the same time that we did so And what other measures have we of any Mans Sincerity or Hypocrisie But only this that he Acts according to the best of his Judgment or that he doth not Act according to what he pretends to Believe We do not indeed say that every one is a good Man that Acts according to his Judgment or that he is to be commended for all Actions that are done in pursuance of his Perswasion No we measure Vertue and Vice by the Rule according to which a Man ought to Act as well as by the Mans intention in Acting But however we all agree that that Man is a Knave that in any instance Acts contrary to that which he took to be his duty And in passing this Sentence we have no regard to this whether the Man was Right or mistaken in his Judgment for be his Judgment Right or Wrong True or False it is all one as to his Honesty in Acting or not Acting according to it He that hath a false perswasion of things so long as that perswasion continues is often as well satisfied that he is in the Right as if his Perswasion was true That is he is oftentimes as Confident when he is in an Error as when he is in the Right And therefore we cannot but conclude that he who being under a mistake will be tempted to Act contrary to his Judgment would certainly upon the same Temptation Act contrary to it was his Judgment never so well informed 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 This I believe is the Sense of all Men in this matter If a Man for instance should of a Jew become a Christian while yet in his Heart he believeth that the Messiah is not yet come and that our Lord Jesus was an Impostor Or if a Papist should to serve some private ends Renounce the Communion of the Roman Church and joyn with ours while yet he is perswaded that the Roman Church is the only Catholick Church and that our Reformed Churches are Heretical or Schismatical Though now there is none of us will deny that the Men in both these Cases have made a good change as having changed a false Religion for a true one yet for all that I dare say we should all agree they were both of them great Villains and Hypocrites for making that change because they made it not upon Honest Principles and in pursuance of their Judgment but in direct Contradiction to both Nay I dare say we should all of us think better of an ignorant well meaning Protestant that being seduced by the perswasions and Artifices of a cunning Popish Factor did really out of Conscience abandon our Communion and go over to the Romanists as thinking theirs to be the safest I say we should all of us entertain a more favourable Opinion of such a Man in such a Case Though really here the change is made from a true Keligion to a false one than we should of either of the other Men I have before named All this put together is abundantly sufficient to shew that no Man can in any Case Act against his Judgment or Perswasion but he is Guilty of Sin in so doing But then our Second Proposition is this The mistake of a Mans 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 what Authority soever a Mans Conscience has over him it can never bear him out if he do an
it In a word if he be prejudiced or biassed any way it is on the side of Authority being rather deâ—â—rous to find himself mistaken and his Governours in the Right than himself in the Right and his Governours miâ—taken I say shew us such a Man as this and we readily grant you have produced a Person that doth sincerely use his endeavours to satisfie himself about the Lawfulness of our Communion But then we must say this also that as the Case stands between the Church of England and the Dissenters we can hardly believe that such a Man will long continue in Separation from the Church but will in a little time gain the Satisfaction of seeing not only that he may Lawfully joyn with us but also that it is his Duty so to do But let us admit that a Man may have endeavoured to Inform his Judgment as well as he can and yet be so far from being convinced that it is his Duty to joyn with us in our Worship that he is still of Opinion that it is his Duty to Separate from us What will we say of such a Man Will we still brand him for a Schismatick notwithstanding he hath done all he can to bring himself over to us but cannot To this I answer in the second Place according to the Principles I have before laid down that if such a Case do ever happen though the Man cannot be excused from Schism as to the matter of it because wherever there is an Actual Separation from a Church with which we ought and with which we may Lawfully Communicate there is an Actual Schism Commenced let the pretence for the Separation be what it will yet I trust he shall not be charged before God with the Formal guilt of the Schism any farther than the Error that led him into it was contracted by his own fault Though Schism in it self as we have said be a great Sin yet we do not say that all those who are engaged in the same Schism are equally Guilty before God In the first place those that separate from the Church to serve any private secular turn these are most horribly guilty of Schism and there is nothing to be said in their excuse In the second Place those who separate from the Church through misperswasions and mistakes of Judgment which they groundlessly and foolishly took up and might have avoided and would yet still certainly correct in themselves if they were but so Careful and Conscientious about their Duty as they ought to be These Men have indeed far more to say for themselves than the former but yet they are very blameable and are bound as they Love their Souls to take more Care of Informing their Conscience aright that so they may leave that Sin they are engaged in But Thirdly those that separate from the Church of God because they know no better nor never had means to know better Or those that have sincerely endeavoured to understand their Duty as much as could be expected from one in their Circumstances yet through weakness of understanding or want of Opportunity light into wrong Paths In a word those that are unhappily engaged in a Schism but God Almighty who searcheth the Hearts knoweth that it is not through the Fault of their Wills but the misfortune of their Circumstances I say if there be any Man among us that is in this Condition though he be a Schismatick Materially yet he is Innocently at least Pittiably so And if he be as free from blame in the other parts of his Life be may be a good Christian for all that And God Almighty we hope who Judgeth of Men by their inward Sincerity and not by their outward Circumstances will impute that Schism which in others perhaps is a wilful Crime to this Man no otherwise then as a pure Sin of Ignorance which shall not upon a general Repentance for all Sins known and unknown be accounted for at the last day Especially if this Innocently mistaken Man we speak of do to the other Regularities of his Life add a diligent Care in these four following Points First that he be not Obstinate and Pertinacious in his way but that he keep his mind readily prepared and disposed to receive any Conviction which God by any Means or Instruments shall offer to him Secondly That he Separate no farther from the Church of which he ought to be a Member than he needs must but do chearfully comply with the Publick Laws and Establishments in all those Instances where he is Satisfied he may do it with a safe Conscience Thirdly that where he cannot give Active Obedience to the Laws he do in those Instances Patiently and Christianly submit to the Penalties which those Laws inflict Neither exclaiming against his Governours or the Magistrates as Persecutors for enacting or Executing those Laws Nor using any undue Illegal means to get himself more ease and Liberty But in all things behaving himself as a quiet and peaceable Subject to the Government he lives under And Fourthly and lastly that he shew himself a good Neighbour as well as a good Subject in avoiding all peevish and bitter Censures of those that differ in Opinion and perswasion from him and Exercising Humanity and Friendliness and Charity to all his Fellow Christians Whosoever I say of our Brethren of the Separation make good these Points That is to say are in the first place very sincere in their endeavours to inform their Conscience aright in the matter of our Communion And in the next place when they cannot Satisfie their Conscience about our way do yet in their Dissent from us Observe the four Particulars I have now named I should be loth for my part to Censure them either as ill Men or ill Subjects or ill Christians But then all that I have said in this matter doth no more justifie the Sin of Schism or Extenuate the hainousness of it in its own Nature Than it would serve to justifie or Extenuate the Sin of Idolatry if all that I have now said was applied to the Case of an Ignorant well meaning devout Papist For I do verily believe that what I have now represented by way of Apology for an innocent mistaken Separatist will hold true mutatis mutandis in the Case of a deluded Romanist who is invincibly and without any fault of his intangled in the Practice of their Idolatries But I believe for all that the Sin of Idolatry is in it self a most grievous Sin and so I believe is the Sin of Schism and therefore notwithstanding all that may be said concerning the Innocence or Excuseableness of some Mens mistakes about these matters yet nevertheless it infinitely concerns every Person to have a care how he be engaged either in the one or the other To come to a conclusion that which I would most seriously press from what hath been said is this It appears from the foregoing Discourse how absolutely necessary it is that every Man should
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
done in that Case A Double Doubt as I have said is this when a man doubts on both sides of an Action that is to say he doubts on one side whether he be not bound to do this Action Gods Law having for any thing he knows commanded it but on the other side so doth the Action come circumstantiated to him that he doubts whether he be not by some other Law of God bound to forbear it as it is now offer'd So that he is at a loss what to do because he fears he may sin whether he do the Action or do it not That which is commonly said in this Case viz. That the Man that is entangled must get his Doubt removed and then he may with a safe Conscience act or not act according as he is satisfied in his own mind is as I said before very often impertinent For it is no more in a mans power to leave off Doubting when he will than it is in the power of a Sick man to be Well when he will And besides though it might be supposed that the man with Time and good Counsel might be enabled to extricate himself out of this Perplexity yet in our Case that Benefit is not always allowed For perhaps the Circumstances of the Case are such that the man is under a present necessity either of acting or not acting and whether he doth the one or the other he doubts he offends God But what then is a man to do in this Case Why he is to follow the same Rule that he doth in all other Doubtful Cases and which we have been all this while insisting on that is to say he is to Act as reasonably as he can And if he do this I am sure he incurs no blame whether he do the Action he doubts about or do it not If there should happen to be any sin in the Action it comes upon some other account than that of Acting with a Doubting Conscience But now the Application of this General Rule to our present Case is various according to the Degrees of the mans Doubtfulness compared with the Degrees of the sin he is in danger of by acting on the one side or the other And likewise according as other Considerations do happen about the Action which ought to have some influence in determining the man However I think all those varieties may be comprized in these Four following Propositions First If the Sin we are afraid of in doing or not doing the Action doth on both sides appear equal there we are to determine our selves to that side where we have the least Doubt of offending God that is to say to that side which to our Reason appears more Probable to be free from the dnager of sin rather than that other which is less Probable to be free from that danger For certainly this will always be reasonable that a man should chuse a greater Probability before a less supposing all other things equal But Secondly If we doubt equally on both sides so that we apprehend that we are in like danger of transgressing Gods Law whether we do the Action or do it not In this Case we are to determine our selves to that side on which it doth appear we shall be guilty of the least sin For certainly by the same reason for which we are obliged not to sin â—n at all we shall be obliged to chuse a less sin rather than a greater where we annot cavoid sinning Thirdly If the Doubt be unequal and the Sin likeways unequal that is if it so happen that one side of the Case is more probable but the other side less sinful as not involving a man in so heinous a Crime as the other would if it should prove that he was mistaken In this Case a man may chuse either the one side or the other according as the degree of the Probability or the degree of the Sin compared with one another do preponderate The Case may be such that there is so much more Probability on the one side than the other and likewise so inconsiderable a difference and disproportion between the sins we are in danger of on each side that a Wise man will be determined to the more Probable side and venture all the consequences of his mistakes on the other But then on the other hand the Case may likewise be such that the Consequences on one side if a man should happen to be mistaken are so terrible that they will over-ballance all the Probabilities on the other side let them be never so great supposing they do not amount to so much evidence as to create a Perswasion and so put a man out of the state of Doubting Now here a Wise man will not Act on the more Probable side but on that which sets him free from the danger of these Consequences Thus if a Prisoner was tryed for a Capital Offence and the Evidence against him doth not appear so full as to create a Perswasion in the Judge or Jury that the man is Guilty though indeed it is more Probable that he is than that he is not In this Case I believe all men will say that considering there is so great a disproportion between the Evil of condemning an Innocent Person and acquitting a Guilty one it being Murder in the one Case the Judge or Jury should rather follow the safer side than the more Probable and so clear the man rather than find him Guilty Fourthly If the Case be such that the Man doubts equally on both sides and the sin he is afraid of appears likewise to him to be equal on both sides Here other Considerations are to turn the Ballance In this Case he is to consider what Prudential Inducements he has to do the Action or forbear it as how far his Ease and Quiet his Advantage and Benefit his good Name and Reputation his Friends or his Family is concerned one way or other and since all other Considerations that are of a Moral Nature are equal on both sides those of this kind which are the strongest must add so much weight to the Scale as to determine the Man either to do the Action he doubts about or to let it alone And indeed it cannot be denyed that these Considerations will often have a great Influence even upon a good Man not only in the Case I have now put where the directly Moral Arguments are equal on both sides but in all the other doubtful Cases I before mentioned We may talk very rationally about the Degrees of Probability and the Degrees of Sin and what weight each of them is to have with us and all this with so much Evidence that no Man can deny the reasonableness of the Rules we lay down in Thesi But yet when we come to Act we find that scarce any Man doth exactly proceed according to these Rules but mixes some of these Prudential Considerations which I have mentioned with his Deliberations and though they do not wholly
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
of his and God Almighty who is the Judge of all mens Hearts and Circumstances doth know he had not means and opportunities to understand better FINIS ERRATA PAg. 27. l. 7. for annot cavoid r. cannot avoid p. 35. l. 3. for this last r. the least p. 43. l. 28. after Spiritual add by doing the Former p. 61. l. 1. r. because p. 62. l. penult r. Chrysostome p. 66. l. 9. r. no wise p. 94. l. 19. r. Probability ADVERTISEMENT 1. A Discourse concerning Conscience the first Part. Wherein an Account is given of the Nature and Rule and Obligation of it And the Case of those who Separate from the Communion of the Church of England as by Law Estalished upon this Pretence That it is against their Conscience tojoyn in it is stated and discussed 2. A Resolution of this Case viz. Whether it be Lawful to Separate from the Publick Worship of God in the Parochial Assemblies of England upon that New Pretence which some Men make of the Case being much altered now from what it was when the Puritans wrote against the Brownists and the Presbyterians against the Independent 3. Resolution of two Cases of Conscience in two Discourses The First Of the Lawfulness of Compliance with all the Ceremonies of the Church of England The Second Of the necessity of the use of Common-Prayer in Publick A DISCOURSE ABOUT A SCRVPVLOVS CONSCIENCE Containing some PLAIN DIRECTIONS For the CURE of it LONDON Printed for T. Basset at the George in Fleet-street and B. Tooke at the Ship in St. Paul's Church-yard 1684. A DISCOURSE ABOUT A Scrupulous Conscience c. IT is not my Design in the following Discourse to expose or upbraid the Weakness of any of our Dissenting Brethren but rather charitably to contribute what I can towards the healing and curing of it and this I take for granted That we cannot do greater Service either to the Church of Christ or Souls of Men than by all prudent Means to root those needless Scruples out of their Minds which have been the Occasion of such unchristian Separations and dangerous Divisions amongst us at first begun and still maintained generally upon the Account of such Things as I verily believe a well-instructed Conscience need not be concerned or disturbed about Here I shall first shew what I understand by a Scrupulous Conscience then observe some few things concerning it and lastly offer some plain Rules and Means by which we may best get rid of it First What is a Scrupulous Conscience Now Conscience as it is a Rule of our Actions is nothing else but a Man's Mind or Judgment concerning the moral Goodness or Evil Lawfulness or Unlawfulness of Things and as this Judgment is either true or false so is our Conscience either good and well-grounded or erroneous The Divine Law made known to us either by the light of Nature or plain Scripture or direct consequence from it such as any honest man may understand is the Rule of Conscience or of that Judgment we make of the lawfulness or unlawfulness of things so that our Conscience is a safe Rule and Guide of Actions no further than as it self is directed and warranted by the Law of God 1. A good and well grounded Conscience is when we carefully abstain from whatever God hath forbidden don't neglect doing any thing which he hath commanded and as for other Mattes left indifferent and at liberty we do them or forbea doing of them according as the Rules of obedience to Superiours Prudence and Charity do require This is the Health and sound State of the Mind 2. An erroneous Conscience is when we judge that to be evil or unnecessary which God hath expresly commanded and is our Duty or that to be good and necessary which he hath plainly forbid and is really sinful Now our Consciences cannot alter the nature of things that which is our Duty remaineth so and we sin by omitting it notwithstanding we in our Consciences think it unlawful to be done and what is really Evil continueth such and is Sin in us however our Consciences tell us it is our duty to do it and the fault is more or less compassionable and pardonable as the causes of the Error are more or less voluntary and avoidable This is a grievous Disease and deadly Sickness of the Mind when we thus grosly err in our Judgments and act according to our mistaken Opinion of Things 3. A scrupulous Conscience is conversant about things in their own Nature indifferent and it consists Either in strictly tying up our selves to some things which God hath no where commanded as the Pharisees made great conscience of washing before they did eat and abundance of other unnecessary Rites and Usages they had of Mens own inventing and devising which they as religiously nay more carefully observed than the indisputable Commands of God himself Or in a conscientious abstaining from somethings which are not forbid nor any ways unlawful Touch not taste not handle not doubting and fearing where no Fear is thinking that they should as much offend God by eating some kind of Meats wearing some Garments as they should do were they guilty of Murder and Adultery Which is the Case of many amongst us who by such Scrupulosity about little matters seem more precise and austere than other good and honest Christians are or themselves need or ought to be Far be it from me by any thing I shall now say to discourage the greatest and tenderest care any Christian can take to keep himself from all Sin from all Occasions and Temptations to it from the least appearance of Evil of what is really such and to do any thing that is in it self sinful out of confidence that it is lawful is far worse and a more grievous Offence than to abstain from many things which are truly lawful out of an Opinion that they are sinful Notwithstanding this I cannot but reckon it the chief Policy of the Devil the grand Enemy of all that is good when he cannot persuade us that there is nothing at all sinful or unlawful than to make us suspect every thing for such or at least that there is great danger of displeasing God by the most indifferent and innocent Actions by these means ensnaring and entangling Mens Consciences and rendring Religion a most troublesome Burden to them A scrupulous Conscience therefore starts and boggles where there is no real Evil or Mischief is afraid of omitting or doing what may be omitted or done without Sin Which I know not how better to illustrate than by those unaccountable Antipathies or Prejudices that some men have against some sort of Meats or living Creatures which have not the least harm or hurt in them yet are so offensive and dreadful to such Persons that they fly from them as they would from a Tyger or Bear and avoid them as they would do the Plague or Poyson Just thus do some Men run out of the Church at the sight of a
do any thing in God's Worship but what is so determined it follows that God cannot be worshipped at all unless we could worship him in no Time Place Habit or Gesture nor indeed can I learn how a Christian can with a good Conscience perform any part of God's Worship if this Principle be admitted for true that whatsoever is not commanded is forbid since the external Circumstances of religious Actions without which they cannot be performed are not prescribed or determined in Scripture and so he must commit a Sin every time he prays or receives the Holy Sacrament Besides this Reason would oblige us to separate from all the Churches that ever were or are in the World there being no constituted Church in which there are not some Orders and Injunctions for the regulating the publick Worship of God no where commanded in Scripture We could never upon this Principle have held Communion with the Primitive Churches which undoubtedly had their instituted significant Ceremonies nor is there any Church at this day that hath not by its own Authority determined some of the Circumstances of Divine Service for the more decent and orderly Performance thereof Nay those very Persons that make this Exception do themselves practise many things in the Worship of God without the least shadow of a Divine Command to which they oblige their Hearers and Communicants for conceived Prayers sitting at the Eucharist sprinkling the Infant at Baptism the Minister's officiating in a black Cloak or Coat are full out as unscriptural humane uncommanded as any Gesture Habit or Form used in our Church 2. That is said to be unlawful which hath been abused to sinful Purposes to Idolatry or Superstition so that nothing ought to be retained in our Worship tho it be not forbid by God which was used in times of Popery Hence the ordinary Objection against our Parish Churches is that they are not sufficiently purged from Popery that our first Reformers were indeed excellent and worthy Persons for the Times they lived in that what they did was very commendable and a good Beginning but they were forced to comply with the necessities of the Age which would not bear a compleat Reformation They left a great deal of Popish Trash in the Church hoping by degrees to reconcile the Papists to it or at least that they might not make the Breach too wide and too much prejudice or estrange them from it But we now live under better means have greater Light and Knowledge and so a further and more perfect Amendment is now necessary Thus the Order of Bishops is decried as Popish and Antichristian our Liturgy as taken out of the Mass Book and our Ceremonies as Relicks of Idolatry But the truth of the case is this We must consider that those of the Church of Rome do hold and maintain all the Essentials of Christianity but then by degrees as they found Opportunity they have added a number of impious and pernicious Doctrines to the Christian Faith the Belief and Profession of which they equally require of all that are in their Communion Besides this they have introduced several idolatrous and superstitious Rites and Practises into the Service of their Church never heard of for the first four hundred Years by which they have miserably defaced and corrupted the Worship of God and made it necessary for all those that love their own Salvation to separate from them Now our first Reformers here in England did not go about to invent a new Species of Government to devise new Rites and Ceremonies and a new form of Worship such as should be least excepted against and then obtrude it upon this Nation as was done at Geneva and some other places but they wisely considered that if they did but reject what the Romanists had added to the Faith and Worship of Christians lay aside their novel Inventions Usurpations and unwritten Traditions there would remain the pure simple Primitive Christianity such as it was before the Roman Church was thus degenerated nor have we any thing of Popery left amongst us but what the Papists had left amongst them of Primitive Religion and Worship As we must not receive the evil for the sake of the good so neither must we reject the good for the sake of the evil In our Church we pray neither to Saints nor Angels nor the Virgin Mary our Liturgy is in a known Tongue we deny the Laity no part of the Sacrament nor the reading of the Scriptures we offer no Mass Sacrifice nor Worship Images or the consecrated Bread We have not one Doctrine or Ceremony in use amongst us that is purely Popish But we must be obliged to part with the most sacred venerable and usefullest things in our Religion if this be a sufficient reason of our forbearing any thing because the Papists abuse it This therefore I conclude to be the best and plainest rule for the governing of our Consciences not wilfully to omit any thing that God hath commanded to avoid to the utmost of our Power what God hath forbid and what ever else we have no particular Divine Law about to guide our selves by the general Rules of Scripture the commands of our Superiours and by the measures of Prudence Peace and Charity This one rule and it cannot but seem a very reasonable one would soon put an end to our squabbles and janglings about Forms and Ceremonies and other indifferent things 5. In order to the bringing men to a complyance with the Laws of our Church we must desire them to consider that there never was nor ever will be any publick Constitution that will be every way unexceptionable The best policy whether Civil or Ecclesiastical that can be established will have some flaws and defects which must be borne and tolerated Some Inconveniences will in process of time arise that never could be foreseen or provided against and to make alteration upon every emergent difficulty may be often of worse consequence than the evil we pretend to cure by it Let the Rules and Modes of Government Discipline publick Worship be most exact and blameless yet there will be faults in Governours and Ministers as long as they are but men We must not expect in this World a Church without Spot or Wrinkle that consists only of Saints in which nothing can be found amiss especially by those who lye at the catch and wait for an advantage against it If men will scruple and reform as long as any thing remaineth which they can object against they must e'en come at last as a Reverend Person of our Church hath observed to the state of that miserable Man who left all humane Society that he might not be defiled with other Mens Sins and at last cut out the Contents of Chapters and Titles of Books out of the Bible because they were humane Inventions added to the pure Word of God Men must be willing if ever they would promote Peace and Unity to put candid Constructions and
prejudice them against his Person and Doctrine Thus our Saviours own Country-men who were acquainted with his Father and Mother and Kindred who knew the meanness of his Birth and Education Mark 6. 3. were Offended or Scandalized at him They were astonished at the great things he did and the greater things he spoke and would in all probability have believed on him had they not known his mean Original and employment Is not this the Carpenter the Son of Mary c. After the same manner when our Lord St. John 6. 61. had discoursed of eating the Flesh of the Son of Man they that heard him taking it in a gross carnal sense were Offended or Scandalized at him They began to doubt of his being a true Prophet or the Messiah who would teach his Disciples to turn Cannibals Thus again our Saviour before the night in which he was betrayed told his Disciples St. Matt. 26. 31. all of ye shall be Offended or Scandalized because of me this Night that is shall fly away and shamefully forsake me when you behold my hard usage and dismal sufferings So Christ Crucified 1 Cor. 1. 23. to the Jews was a Scandal or stumbling-block that is they had set their minds and hearts on a temporal earthly King and expected to be freed from the Roman Yoke and to be restored to their former Dominions and greatness as the effect of the coming of their Messiah and therefore could not be persuaded to own him for their Prince and Saviour and the Son of God who was put to such a Cursed and Ignominious death In the same sense they who heard the Word of God Mark 4. 17. and received it with gladness but having no root in themselves when Affliction or Persecution arose for the Words sake were presently offended or Scandalized that is were ready to leave and renounce that Profession that was likely to cost them so dear After the publishing of the Gospel by the Apostles that which most stumbled the Jewish Converts was the danger Moses's Law and their Temple Worship and the singular preeminences of the Seed of Abraham seemed to be in of being undermined by Christianity They were strangely wedded to their Legal observances fond of Circumcision and those peculiarities which distinguished their Nation from the rest of mankind they were jealous of any Doctrine that encroached upon their Priviledges or tended to bring them down to the same level with the Uncircumcised World This mightily Offended them and hardned them against Christianity whereas on the other side the Gentile Converts with as much reason were afraid of putting their Necks under so heavy a Yoke or being brought into subjection to the Jewish Law and there was no such effectual way to scare them from Christianity as when it came attended with the burden of the Mosaical Ceremonies which were an Offence to them that is did discourage them from believing in Christ or continuing in his Faith Now to prevent the mischiefs that might arise from these different apprehensions amongst the Christian Proselites was the occasion of the meeting of that first Council at Jerusalem mentioned Acts 15. and of those directions which St. Paul gives Rom. 14. concerning our behaviour towards weak Brethren Another case there was concerning eating of things offered to Idols of which St. Paul discourseth in his first Epistle to the Corinthians chap. 8. and 10. the sum of which seems to be this that the stronger and wiser Christians ought to abstain from eating what had been offered to Idols tho as ordinary meat in the presence of any one who with Conscience of the Idol did eat it as a thing offered to an Idol For such there were in the Church of Corinth so weak as not yet to have quite left off their Idolatrous Worship and a Christians eating what had been Offered in Sacrifice before such an one might serve to harden and confirm him in his Error whose Conscience being weak is defiled Of whose Soul St. Paul professed himself to have so great regard that he would eat no such meat as long as the World lasted rather than lay such a stumbling-block before or wound their weak Consciences In all these places and many more that might be named for the fuller explication of which I refer you to interpreters and those that have written largely on this subject no less than Apostacy from the Christian Faith was the sin into which these weak Christians were so apt to fall and by an undue use of our Liberty to give occasion to anothers forsaking the Christian Religion whereby our Saviour loseth a Disciple and the Soul of our Brother perisheth is the proper sin of Offending or giving Scandal I shall mention but one place more which is Revel 2. 14. where Balaam is said to have taught Balac to cast a stumbling-block or Scandal before the Children of Israel which relates othis inticing them by the Daughters of Moab to Fornication and Idolatry and by that means provoking God against them So that in the most general sense to Scandalize or Offend any one is to give occasion to his sin and consequently his ruin and undoing and this I suppose will be granted by all that do not receive their opinions from the meer sound of words Hence I shall conclude these few things 1. The better Men are the harder it is to Scandalize them Those are not such Godly persons as they would be thought who are so ready at all turns to be Offended for how can they be reckon'd to excel others in knowledg or goodness who are so easily upon every occasion drawn or tempted to sin Thus Mr. Baxter himself tells the Separatists in his Cure of Church Divisions Vsually saith he men talk most against Scandalizing those whom they account to be the best and the best are least in danger of sinning and so they accuse them to be the worst or else they know not what they say for suppose a Separatist should say if you hold Communion with any Parish Minister or Church in England it will be a Scandal to many good people I would ask such an one Why call you those good people that are easily drawn to sin against God Nay that will sin because I do my duty Therefore if you know what you say you make the Separatists almost the worst of men that will sin against God because another will not sin The great thing our Nonconformists pretend unto above other men is tenderness of Conscience by which they must mean if they mean any Vertue by it a great fear of doing any thing that is evil and this where it is in truth is the best security that can be devised against being Scandalized or Offended by what other Men do that is against being drawn into sin by it So that they do really disparage and severely reflect upon the Dissenters who are thus afraid of giving them Offence as I have explained it 2. No man can with sense say of himself that he
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
one in this Question a lawful command of our Superiours for fear of some evil that may by chance happen to some others through their own fault and we prove it by this reason which our Dissenting Brethren must own for true and good because every one is bound to have a greater care of his own than others Salvation and consequently rather to avoid sin in himself than to prevent it in his Brethren If it be here asked as it is by some whether any human Authority can make that action cease to be Scandalous which if done without any such Command had been criminal upon the account of the Scandal that followed it I Answer that no Authority whether divine or human can secure that others shall not be Offended by what I do out of obedience to their Commands but then it doth free me from all guilt and blame by making that to become my duty to do which if I had done needlesly without any great reason and my Brother had been hurt and his Conscience wounded by it might have been justly charged with uncharitableness greater or less according as the Scandal was more or less probable to follow This must be granted that the Laws of God or Man otherwise obligatory do not lose their binding force because of some Scandal that may possibly happen from our Complyance with them or else all Authority is utterly void and insignificant and every Man is at liberty to do all things as himself pleaseth for to borrow the words of the excellent Bishop Sanderson To allow Men under pretence that some offence may be taken thereat to disobey Laws and Constitutions made by those that are in Authority over us is the next way to cut the sinews of all Authority and to bring both Magistrates and Laws into contempt for what Law ever was made or can be made so just and reasonable but some Man or other either did or might take offence thereat Whether such a Constitution or Command of our Superiours be Scandalous or no every one must judge for himself and so according to his own private opinion of the goodness or hurtfulness of what is required he is free to obey it or not which is directly to dissolve all Government and to bring in certain disorder and everlasting confusion every one doing what is good in his own Eyes 3. It is said that Avoiding of Scandal is a main duty of charity May Superiours therefore at their pleasure appoint how far I shall shew my charity towards my Brothers Soul then surely an inferiour Earthly Court may cross the determinations of the High Court of Heaven This Mr. Jeans urgeth also out of Amesius but it is easily replyed That here is no Crossing the determinations of God since it is his express will that in all lawful things we should obey our Governours and he who hath made this our duty will not lay to our charge the mischiefs that may sometimes without our fault through the folly and peevishness of Men follow from it and certainly it is as equal and reasonable that our Superiours should appoint how far I shall exercise my charity towards my Brethren as it is that the mistake and prejudice of any private Christians should set bounds to their Power and Authority Cancel the publick Laws or that every ignorant and froward Brother should determin how far we shall be obedient to those whom God hath set over us either in Church or State But to give a more full Answer to this we must know that tho charity be the great duty especially of the Christian Religion yet duties of justice as they are commonly called are of stricter obligation than duties of charity and we are bound to pay our debts before we give an alms Now obedience to Superiours is a debt we owe to them which they have right to exact of us so that they may accuse us of injury if we perform it not But a great care to hinder sin in others or not to Scandalize them is a duty of charity which indeed we are obliged unto as far as we can but not till after we have given to every one what is his due and right It is therefore no more Lawful for me saith the forenamed most Judicious Bishop Sanderson to disobey the lawful Command of a Superiour to prevent thereby the offence of one or a few Brethren then it is lawful for me to do one man wrong to do another man a courtesie withal or than it is lawful for me to rob the Exchequer to relieve an Hospital According to that known saying of St. Austin Quis est qui dicat ut habeamus quod demus pauperibus faciamus furta divitibus Who is it that saith it is lawful to steal from the rich what we may bestow on the poor or to refuse to pay Taxes on pretence that you know those who have more need of your money To this Mr. Jeans replies Suppose saith he the care of not giving offence be in respect of our Brother but a debt of charity yet in regard of God it is a legal debt since he may and doth challenge it as due and we do him wrong if we disobey him Here I grant indeed that both are required by God at our hands that we should be obedient to our Superiours and that we should be always ready to shew charity to our Brethren but then I say this is not the charity which God requires when I give to those in want what is none of mine own This is not an instance or expression of that love and kindness which by the Law of God we owe to our Brother to do him good by wronging our Superiours God hath obliged Servants to be merciful to the poor to their power as well as to be true and faithful to their Masters but that is no part of the mercy which God requires from them to give away their Masters goods without his leave tho it were to those who stand in great need of relief God hath Commanded all Christians to have a great care of being any occasion of their Brothers sin or fall but then this must necessarily be understood only of things subject to our own ordering and management In all cases wherein we are at our own disposal we are bound charitably to regard our Brother But in instances where our practice is determined by Authority our Superiours only are to consider the danger of Scandal we must consider the duty we owe to them this being a matter wherein we cannot shew our charity without violating the right of our Superiours It remains then in the words of another great Bishop in what case soever we are bound to obey God or Man in that case and in that conjunction of circumstances we have nothing permitted to our choice and consequently there is no place for any act of charity and have no Authority to remit of the right of God or our Superiour and to comply with our Neighbour in such
Communion is the sin of Schism and that is a sin of the blackest dye and greatest guilt noted the in Scriptures for an act of carnality a work of the Flesh and of the Devil for the necessity of our coming to Church and Worshipping God in the same publick place with our Neighbours and submitting to the Government Discipline and Customs of that particular Church we live in doth not depend only upon the Statutes of the Realm which enforce it and the Command of the Civil Magistrate who requires it but by the Law of our Religion all needless Separation or Division amongst Christians breaking into little Parties and Factions from whence comes strife envying confusion and every evil work is to be most carefully avoided as the very bane of Christianity the rending of Christs body and as utterly destructive not only of the peace but of the being of a Church So that should all the Laws about Conformity and against Conventicles be rescinded and voided should the Magistrate indulge or connive at the Separate Assemblies yet still this would not make our joyning with them not to be sinful Since to preserve the unity of Christians and one Communion is the necessary duty of every member of the Church and it can never be thought a justifiable thing to cut off our selves from the Communion of the Church or the Body of Christ out of complyance with any erring or ignorant Brethren But the sinfulness of withdrawing from the Communion of our Church either totally or in part hath been so evidently shewn in some late discourses written on that subject that I do despair of convincing those of the danger of it who can withstand the force of all that hath been already offered to them I only conclude thus much that there is far more of the sin of uncharitableness in such Separation and Division than there can be in all the Offence that is imagined to be given by our Conformity From what I have already at large discoursed it plainly follows that they are things meerly indifferent not only in their own nature but also in respect to us in the use of which we are obliged to consider the weakness of our Brethren What is our duty must be done tho Scandal follow it What is evil and sinful ought to be left undone upon the score of a greater obligation than that of Scandal but now in matters wherein our practise is not determined by any Command we ought so to exercise our liberty as if possible to avoid giving any Offence to our Brethren This is an undoubted part of that charity which one Christian ought always to be ready to shew to another by admonition instruction good example and by the forbearance of things Lawful at which he foreseeth his Neighbour out of weakness will be apt to be Scandalized to endeavour to prevent his falling into any sin or mischief and this we teach and press upon our People as much as Dissenters themselves can in obedience to St. Paul's rules about meats and days things neither in themselves good or evil nor determined by any Authority and therefore they were every way a proper instance wherein Christians might exercise their charity and compassion one to the other and in such cases St. Paul declares that he would rather wholly forego his liberty than by these indifferences endanger the Soul of his Brother as in that famous place 1 Cor. 8. 13. If meat make my Brother to offend I will eat no Flesh while the World standeth lest I make my Brother to Offend where by Flesh and meat is to be understood such as had been Offered unto Idols which tho lawful for a Christian to eat at common meals yet the Apostle would wholly abstain from rather than wound the weak Conscience of a Brother If I by the Law of charity as the Reverend Bishop Taylour saith Great exemp p. 420 must rather quit my own goods than suffer my Brother to perish much rather must I quit my priviledg And We should ill die for our Brother who will not lose a meal to prevent his sin or change a dish to save his Soul and if the thing be indifferent to us yet it ought not to be indifferent to us whether our Brother live or die After this manner do we profess our selves ready to do or forbear any thing in our own power to win and gain our Dissenting Brethren to the Church We grant that those who conform are obliged by this Law of charity not needlesly to vex and exasperate our Dissenters nor to do any thing which they are not bound to do that may estrange them more from the Church but to restrain themselves in the use of that liberty God and the Laws have left them for the sake of peace and out of condescension to their Brethren We dare not indeed omit any duty we owe to God or our Superiours either in Church or State nor can we think it fit and reasonable that our Apostolical Government Excellent Liturgy Orderly Worship of God used in our Church should all be presently condemned and laid aside as soon as some Weak men take Offence at them but in all other things subject to our own ordering and disposal we acknowledge our selves bound to please our Brother for his good unto Edification I only add here that this very rule of yielding to our Brother in things indifferent and undetermined ought to have some restrictions and limitations several of which are mentioned by Mr. Jeans whom I have so often named as First That we are not to forbear these indifferent things where there is only a possibility of Scandal but where the Scandal consequent is probable for otherwise we should be at an utter loss and uncertainty in all our actions and never know what to do Secondly Our weak Brethren must have some probable ground for their imagination that what we do is evil and sinful or else we must wear no Ribbands nor put off our Hats but come all to Thou and Thee and for this exception he gives this substantial reason that if we are to abstain from all indifferent things in which another without probable ground imagineth that there is sin the servitude of Christians under the Gospel would be far greater and more intolerable than that of the Jews under the Mosaical administration Thirdly This must be understood of indifferent things that are of no very great importance for if it be a matter of some weight and moment as yielding me some great profit I must only for a while forbear it untill my Brother is better informed Lastly We must not wholly betray our Christian liberty to please peevish and froward people or to humour our Neighbour in an erroneous and superstitious opinion for which he quotes Mr. Calvin who in his Comment upon 1 Cor. 8. 13. tells of some foolish Interpreters that leave to Christians almost no use at all of things indifferent upon pretence to avoid the Offence of Superstitious
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
would have ours to be And though there is greater need of Caution against it in such places yet the way of their Confession makes the mistake more difficult to be prevented Indeed we find in the Scripture Examples of Holy Men confessing such Sins as themselves were not guilty of Thus did Jeremiah Nehemiah Ezra c. But this was upon Solemn Humiliation for those known and publick Idolatries of the Nation which had brought Gods heavy Judgments upon them or for Common and Scandalous Transgressions afterward They considered themselves as part of that Community which had provoked God to send them into Captivity and therefore they bore their part in the Common Calamity with such meekness and confessed the Common Sins with such humility as if themselves had offended as greatly in their own Persons as their Countrey-men had done But I conceive there is a great deal of difference between those Confessions of Sin that such extraordinary occasions of Publick Humiliation require and those that are fit for the ordinary Service of God in the constant and stated Assemblies of the Church But it ought not to be forgot that those particular Confessions of Sin which some Men want in our Liturgie are not properly the matter of that Publick Service we are to offer daily unto God in Religious Assemblies but of that Private Devotion which is necessary to be performed in our Closets And if we could be persuaded seriously to enter upon this Work of Examining our selves impartially concerning those Sins which we have more openly or secretly committed and then to humble our selves before God for them with particular Confessions and sutable Prayer for his Grace and Pardon we should then find our Affections prepared to comply with those more General Confessions of Sin which we make with the whole Congregation we should then have less reason to complain that those Confessions are not apt to move us because this way would cure the deadness of our hearts which commonly are most to blame when we find fault with the means that God hath provided for us To conclude this Matter There is great need of Particular Confession of Sins in Religious Assemblies but that of another sort than what I have yet been speaking of and that is the particular and humble Confession which every Scandalous Sinner ought to make in the Congregation for the satisfaction of the Church and the declaration of a true Repentance This is not properly an Act of Worship but of Discipline but alas almost lost in this miserably divided state of the Church a loss never enough to be lamented For so it has fallen out that by quarreling for a Reformation in things of an Indifferent Nature that ought to be left to the Prudence of Governours and the Communion of Christians is broken and the Spiritual Authority which Christ left in his Church is exposed to Contempt which is a Matter of a thousand times more concern then all the Objections against the Book of Common Prayer put together though they were as considerable as our Adversaries seem to believe they are The second Objection I shall take notice of is that against the shortness of the Collects by reason of which it is pretended that the Prayer is often suddenly broken off and then begun again And this is thought not so agreeable to the Gravity wherewith this Duty ought to be performed nor so likely a means of exciting Reverence and Devotion in the People as one continued Form of Prayer that might be as long as all those put together Now in answer to this I say 1. That the meer shortness of a Prayer is not to be found fault with by any understanding Christian since this would be to disparage that Form of Prayer which our Lord taught his Disciples it being not much longer than most of our Collects and not so long as some of them 2. That it will be hard to prove That many of these short Prayers being offer'd up unto God one immediately after another is either not so Grave or not so Edifying as one Continued Form I do not believe the difference to be so great as it is made by those that do not approve our way For the Work of Praying is as much continued all the while as if there were but one Continued Form Indeed in the Book the Printed Prayer breaks off somewhat often and there is a distinction made between the several Collects by a New Title shewing the Matter of the Prayer and by beginning a New Line But I hope our Brethren do not mean that in this there is a defect of Gravity or any hindrance of Devotion and Edification For the abruption of the Printed Forms is by no means an interruption of our Prayer since we still go on in Praying or in giving Thanks to God and without breaking off pass from one Petition or Matter of Invocation to another as immediately as if the Distinct Forms we use together were all brought into the Compass of One. And as there is no Interruption of our Praying caused by the frequent beginning and ending of the Collects so neither can this cause an Interruption of Attention in the People which is rather helped by that frequency of saying Amen which this way requires Nor can it be charged with a tendency to Interrupt that Devout Affection and Godly Disposition of Mind which is the best thing in Prayer But on the other hand this may be kept alive and more effectually secured by calling upon the Name of God and pleading the Merits of Christ so often as we do I know some have said this is done more frequently than is meet But it would be a lamentable thing if there should be any difference about this Matter When the Decence and Convenience of a thing is considered we should attribute much to the Wisdom of Authority and to the Judgment of Prudent and Holy Men such as our first Reformers were and great numbers of Learned Persons since their time were also who thought this manner of Praying to be Grave and Edifying And I believe others would be of the same Mind if they would not altogether dwell upon their Prejudice against our way but attend a little to those considerations that favour it and which discover the advantage and usefulness of it which sort of Equity they that are Wise and Humble will shew to all Men much more to their Governours Now the Invocation of God somewhat often by his Attributes does of it self tend to maintain in our Minds a reverent sense of his Majesty and Presence which we all know is of necessary use to make us Pray unto him as we ought to do I make no question but those that have been blamed for repeating Lord Lord so very often in their Extempore Prayers would think themselves somewhat hardly used if they should not be believed in saying that this was not for want of Matter but for the exciting of a reverent sense of Gods Authority in
prejudicial to mens Souls and contributed unspeakably more to the impurity both of mens hearts and lives than the impure Ordinances you so complain of And therefore all good and pious Church of England men cannot but say How happy should we not onely think our selves but indeed be would our Brethren but leave disputing with such mighty concern about little things and things that are perfectly harmless and innocent Would make no more Sins than God and their Blessed Saviour have made Would be as fearfull of culpably Disobeying Authority as of culpably Obeying it Would be as thankfull that they are in no worse Circumstances as they are full of Complaints that they are in no better Would take as much pains to satisfie themselves how far they may lawfully hold Communion with our Church as how far they may lawfully Separate from it Would be as willing to read those Books that are written in the defence of the things enjoined by our Church as to read those which are written in opposition to them Would as impartially consider the vast distance between our Church and that of Rome as thus dwell upon the most inconsiderable Agreement that is between them which our Author hath convincingly to any unprejudiced person proved to be no justifiable pretence for Separation And if we would well digest those excellent words of the Apostle Rom. 14. 17 18. The Kingdom of God is not meat or drink but righteousness peace and joy in the Holy Ghost For he that in these things serveth Christ is acceptable to God and approved of men And if we would follow after the things that make for v. 19. peace and things wherein one may edifie another And lastly if we would at length be perswaded to Let all bitterness and wrath and anger and Eph. 4. 31 32. clamour and evil speaking against one another be put away from us with all malice And to be Kind and affectionate one to another notwithstanding the Difference of Apprehensions tender hearted forgiving one another even as God for Christ's sake hath forgiven us I say if we could once be brought to this temper we should be unspeakably more happy than those things you express so passionate a desire of could possibly make us And without this blessed temper we shall be miserable wretches though there were no Agreement in any one Rite between Rome and us and though our Ordinances were as pure as 't is your wish to have them Nor will our bidding the greatest defiance to the Antichrist in the Roman Chair one whit avail us while the Spiritual Antichrist which is the worse of the two continues possessed of his Seat in our Hearts And so Sir I heartily bid you Farewell ERRATA Page 19. Lin. 12. read in their greatest p. 27. l. 30. dele p. 32. l. 1. read is so contrived FINIS Books sold by R. Horne T. Basset R. Chiswell B. Tooke Brabazon Aylmer W. Rogers and F. Gardiner 1. A Persuasive 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 unlawfull 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 Lawfull 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. In two Parts 11. A Discourse of Profiting by Sermons and of going to hear where men think they can profit most 12. A serious Exhortation with some important Advices relating to the late Cases about Conformity recommended to the present Dissenters from the Church of England 13. An Argument for Union taken from the true interest of those Dissenters in England who profess and call themselves Protestants 14. The Case of Lay-Communion with the Church of England considered 15. A Persuasive to Frequent Communion in the Holy Sacrament of the Lord's Supper 16. Some Considerations about the Case of Scandal or giving Offence to the weak Brethren 17. The Case of Infant-Baptism in five Questions c. 18. The Charge of Scandal and giving Offence by Conformity Refelled and Reflected back upon Separation c. 19. A Defence of the Resolution of this Case viz. Whether the Church of England's Symbolizing so far as it doth with the Church of Rome makes it unlawfull to hold Communion with the Church of England In Answer to a Book Intituled A Modest Examination of that Resolution THE CASE OF Infant-Baptism In Five QUESTIONS I. Whether Infants are uncapable of Baptism II. Whether Infants are excluded from Baptism by Christ III. Whether it is lawful to separate from a Church which appointeth Infants to be Baptised IV. Whether it be the Duty of Christian Parents to bring their Children unto Baptism V. Whether it is lawful to Communicate with Believers who were Baptized in their Infancy LONDON Printed by T. Hodgkin for Tho. Basset at the George in Fleet-Street Benj. Tooke at the Ship in St. Paul's Church-Yard 1685. THE CASE OF Infant-Baptism The Previous Discourse THE better to prepare the mind of my Reader for what I shall say in this Discourse about Infant-Baptism I think it requisite to premise a short Introduction First Concerning the Original And Secondly Concerning the Nature of the Jewish Church Thirdly Concerning the initiatory Sacrament into it and the Persons that were capable of Initiation And Lastly Concerning the alteration of it from the Mosaic into the Christian Oeconomy or to express my self more plainly in the * * * Heb. 2. 5 6. Scripture-phrase concerning the alteration of the House of Moses into the House of Christ As for the Original of the Jewish Church it is to be referred unto Abraham the †††Rom. 4. 11. Father of the Faithful purely considered as a Church But if it be considered as a Common-wealth or as a Church under such a Political Regulation then it is to be referred unto Moses who was called even by Heathen Writers the * * * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Sect. 7. Legislator of the Jews These two Considerations of the Jewish Church purely as a Church and as a Common-wealth or as a Church under such a mixture with a Common-wealth ought heedfully to be distinguished 1. Because there is ground for such a distinction in the nature
our Saviour the great friend and lover of souls A command so reasonable so easie so full of blessings and benefits to the faithfull observers of it One would think it were no difficult matter to convince men of their duty in this particular and of the necessity of observing so plain an Institution of our Lord that it were no hard thing to persuade men to their interest and to be willing to partake of those great and manifold blessings which all Christians believe to be promised and made good to the frequent and worthy Receivers of this Sacrament Where then lyes the difficulty what should be the cause of all this backwardness which we see in men to so plain so necessary and so beneficial a duty The truth is men have been greatly discouraged from this Sacrament by the unwary pressing and inculcating of two great truths the danger of the unworthy receiving of this holy Sacrament and the necessity of a due preparation for it Which brings me to the III. Third Particular I proposed which was to endeavour to satisfie the Objections and Scruples which have been raised in the minds of men and particularly of many devout and sincere Christians to their great discouragement from the receiving of this Sacrament at least so frequently as they ought And these Objections I told you are chiefly grounded upon what the Apostle says at the 27th verse Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread and drink this cup of the Lord unworthily is guilty of the body and bloud of the Lord. And again ver 29. He that eateth and drinketh unworthily eateth and drinketh damnation to himself Upon the mistake and misapplication of these Texts have been grounded two Objections of great force to discourage men from this Sacrament which I shall endeavour with all the tenderness and clearness I can to remove First That the danger of unworthy receiving being so very great it seems the safest way not to receive at all Secondly That so much preparation and worthiness being required in order to our worthy Receiving the more timorous sort of devout Christians can never think themselves duly enough qualified for so sacred an Action 1. That the danger of unworthy receiving being so Obj. 1 very great it seems the safest way wholly to refrain from this Sacrament and not to receive it at all But this Objection is evidently of no force if there be as most certainly there is as great or a greater danger on the other hand viz. in the neglect of this Duty And so though the danger of unworthy receiving be avoided by not receiving yet the danger of neglecting and contemning a plain Institution of Christ is not thereby avoided Surely they in the Parable that refused to come to the marriage-feast of the King's Son and made light of that gracious invitation were at least as faulty as he who came without a wedding garment And we find in the conclusion of the Parable that as he was severely punished for his disrespect so they were destroyed for their disobedience Nay of the two it is the greater sign of contempt wholly to neglect the Sacrament than to partake of it without some due qualification The greatest indisposition that can be for this holy Sacrament is one's being a bad man and he may be as bad and is more likely to continue so who wilfully neglects this Sacrament than he that comes to it with any degree of reverence and preparation though much less than he ought And surely it is very hard for men to come to so solemn an Ordinance without some kind of religious awe upon their spirits and without some good thoughts and resolutions at least for the present If a man that lives in any known wickedness of life do before he receive the Sacrament set himself seriously to be humbled for his sins and to repent of them and to beg God's grace and assistence against them and after the receiving of it does continue for some time in these good resolutions though after a while he may possibly relapse into the same sins again this is some kind of restraint to a wicked life and these good moods and fits of repentance and reformation are much better than a constant and uninterrupted course of sin Even this righteousness which is but as the morning cloud and the early dew which so soon passeth away is better than none And indeed scarce any man can think of coming to the Sacrament but he will by this consideration be excited to some good purposes and put upon some sort of endeavour to amend and reform his life and though he be very much under the bondage and power of evil habits if he do with any competent degree of sincerity and it is his own fault if he do not make use of this excellent means and instrument for the mortifying and subduing of his lusts and for the obtaining of God's grace and assistence it may please God by the use of these means so to abate the force and power of his lusts and to imprint such considerations upon his mind in the receiving of this holy Sacrament and preparing himself for it that he may at last break off his wicked course and become a good man But on the other hand as to those who neglect this Sacrament there is hardly any thing left to restrain them from the greatest enormities of life and to give a check to them in their evil course nothing but the penalty of humane Laws which men may avoid and yet be wicked enough Heretofore men used to be restrained from great and scandalous vices by shame and fear of disgrace and would abstain from many sins out of regard to their honour and reputation among men But men have hardened their faces in this degenerate Age and those gentle restraints of modesty which governed and kept men in order heretofore signifie nothing now adays Blushing is out of fashion and shame is ceased from among the children of men But the Sacrament did always use to lay some kind of restraint upon the worst of men and if it did not wholly reform them it would at least have some good effect upon them for a time If it did not make men good yet it would make them resolve to be so and leave some good thoughts and impressions upon their minds So that I doubt not but it hath been a thing of very bad consequence to discourage men so much from the Sacrament as the way hath been of late years And that many men who were under some kind of check before since they have been driven away from the Sacrament have quite let loose the reins and prostituted themselves to all manner of impiety and vice And among the many ill effects of our past confusions this is none of the least That in many Congregations of this Kingdom Christians were generally disused and deterred from the Sacrament upon a pretence that they were unfit for it and being so they must necessarily incur the
not oblige all Christians to a like Practice 1. Because naked examples without some Rule or Note added to them to signify that it is the mind and will of God to have them constantly followed and perpetually Imitated by us have not the force of a Law perpetually obliging the Conscience Thus in our present Case though our Lord did Sit at the Sacrament yet his example alone doth not become an everlasting Rule for all Ages to observe because he hath no where discovered his binding will and pleasure in this particular And consequently since he hath left us in the Dark we may act contrary to his will and intention when we so zealously press and follow his example especially in this matter relating to Gesture For even under the Law where all other Circumstances of Time Place Habits and the Ceremonies relating to Divine Worship were with great particularity described this of Gesture was left free and undetermined God never obliged them to use any particular Gesture in any particular part of his Worship but left it to their choice whether to Kneel or Stand or Bow down their Heads and Bodies or fall prostrate on the Earth to use all or any one of these as Custom and their own Pious Prudence should prompt and direct them Seeing then that the Gesture in the Worship of God was never determined under the Law Since it was and is in its own nature a Mutable Ceremony in the Service of God it remains so unto this day Our Lord left it as he found it unless it can be proved that he hath by some Command or Note of Immutability fixt and determined it to all succeeding Ages But because no such Command or Note is to be found therefore we are not tyed in Conscience to a strict Imitation of his Example A few instances will clear this point Our Lord was not Baptized till Luke 3. 23. he was about thirty years of Age but this example is not esteemed by the generality of Dissenters a Law or Warrant for us to defer our Baptism so long So he Instituted the Sacrament a little before his Death But is there no obligation upon us to receive it but when we are near our Graves and under a Prospect of Death He also Instituted and Administred the Sacrament after a full Meal in an upper Room to Men onely Doth his bare example oblige us to observe punctually all these Circumstances or no If it doth why do our Brethren of the Separation take the liberty to depart from his example in these things if his example layeth no necessity upon us to follow it in these particulars how doth Sitting become necessary barely upon the account of his example I desire them therefore Seriously and impartially to examine this matter and see if they can assign any reasons for this liberty they take of following the example of our Saviour in some things and not in others where there is no other Rule to guide them I believe they will be constrained to do one of these two things either to withdraw their Suit against Kneeling and quit their own Principle or condemn their own practices as shamefully repugnant to it 2. The bare example of Christ is no Warrant for us to act by because the great end and usefulness of that Glorious example he left us consists in this viz. that it shews the possibility and clears up the sense of his Laws and excites and encourages us to the Practice of them it puts the Rule into activity and sets it forth to the life It is to our lives as Exhortation is to Doctrine it thrusts us forward to do that which we were obliged in Conscience to do before Whatsoever our Lord hath Commanded us to do in that onely we are necessarily bound to Imitate him But where there is no Precept there is no Necessity We may do it if we will and if we can innocently as in the case of a single Life but we are not under Constraint and an indispensable Obligation He hath Commanded us to be Meek and Lowly to be Just and Merciful to be Patient under all our Troubles and Afflictions to follow Peace with all Men to be ever contented and resigned to the Will of our Heavenly Father in all States and Conditions of Life and the life And in all these things he became an Example to us that we might follow his Steps He Commands us to do what he performed himself and that which we are concerned in if we would walk surely is first to look for our Rule and then for our encouragement to look unto Jesus the Author and Finisher of our Faith It 's true indeed we are Commanded in Scripture to follow the Examples of the Apostles so far forth as they follow Christ and the Example of our Lord is made the Touchstone to try all others by but then if we would know what is out Duty we must bring his Example to the Rule For as to Preach Christ and to Preach the Gospel to Obey Christ and Obey the 1 Cor. 11. 1. Acts 5. 42. Acts 11. 20. Marc. 16. 15. Heb. 5. 9. 2 Thess 1. 8. Col. 2. 6. Gospel are Phrases of alike Import it Scripture so in like manner to follow Christ is all one with following the Gospel-Rule or doing as Christ did in obedience to his Commands The Sum of all is this An Example may help to Interpret a Law but of it self it is no Law Against a Rule no Example is a Competent Warrant and if the Example be according to the Rule it 's not the Example but the Rule that is the Measure of our Actions 3. The bare Example of Christ is no Warrant for us to go by because he was an extraordinary Person and did many things which we cannot and many which we must not do He Fasted 40 Days and 40 Nights and spent whole Nights in Prayer he wrought many Miracles to prove the Truth of his Doctrine and his Divine Authority by that he was the Messias the Son of God and Saviour of Mankind he was a Prophetical Priest by which Office he was obliged to teach us the whole mind of God in all things necessary to Faith and Salvation and to offer up himself as a propitiatory Sacrifice for the Sins of the World Nothing we should quickly experiment would be more Vain and Foolish than attempts of an Imitation in some things And nothing more Wicked than to think and believe we may and ought to follow his example in others To dye to Sin and Crucify the Flesh with its Affections and Lusts is a good way as the Scripture Teaches and Warrants of Imitating our Lords Death in a Spiritual Sense So to Die rather than deny the Faith and Dishonour our Saviour is great and Praiseworthy but to Die for Sin either our own or other Men's to propose a Meritorious Death to our Selves and by way of expiation is a Sin of so deep a Stain that the Blood of Christ
us to observe onely a Feast-Gesture for the due Celebration of it 3. Kneeling is very Comely and Agreeable to the Nature of the Lord's Supper though no Table-Gesture Which I hope will be made evident to every Honest and Unbyassed Mind which Impartially seeks after Truth by these following considerations 1. Kneeling is allowed on all Hands to be a very fit and sutable Gesture for Prayer and Praise and very apt to express our Reverence Humility and Gratitude by and Consequently very fit to be used at the Holy Sacrament and agreeable to its Nature This will appear if we reflect upon what hath been delivered concerning the Nature and Ends of the Lord's Supper For at the Sacrament we express that by Actions as I hinted before which at other times we do by Words and the Lord's Supper is a Solemn Rite of Christian Worship which implyes Prayer and Praise It includes all the Parts of Prayer By partaking of the Signs of his Body broken and Blood shed for our Sins we do Commemorate Represent and Shew forth to God the Father the Sacrifice which his Dearly Beloved Son made upon the Cross we Feast upon the memorials of the great Sin-Offering And in so doing we make an open Confession and Acknowledgment of our Guilt and Unworthiness to God and we plead with him in the Vertue of his Sons Blood which was shed for us for the Pardon and Remission of all our Sins We further Humbly entreat him to be Propitious and Favourable to us and to bestow upon us all those benefits which our Lord purchased with his most Precious Blood We Intercede with him too at the Communion for the whole Church that all our Fellow-Christians and true Members of his Body may Receive Remission of their Sins and all other benefits of his Passion And as Eating and Drinking at his Table is a Visible and Powerful Prayer in the sight of God so it is a Visible Act of Praise and Thanksgiving whereby we let our Heavenly Father see that we retain a deep and lively sense of his Unexpressible Love in sending his onely begotten Son into the World to Dye for us that we might Live through him And that which enlivens our Faith and emboldens our hopes of finding Favour and Acceptance at his Hands at this time above others is this viz. Our Prayers and Praises are not onely put up in the Name of Christ but presented and as it were Writ in his Blood and offered to God over the great Propitiatory Sacrifice All this our Actions signify and speak when we Eat the Consecrated Bread and Drink the Cup of Blessing at the Lord's Table If therefore these things be True and I think no body who understands what he doth when he partakes of the Lord's Supper will gainsay it then Kneeling must be judged as fitting and convenient to be used at such a time when we signify our desires and affections by external Rites and Ceremonies of Gods appointment as when we do it by Words that is when we say our Prayers 2. Our Dissenting Brethren and all good Christians will Grant that our Blessed Saviour ought to be Worshipt and Adored by all worthy Communicants inwardly in their Hearts and Souls when they Receive the Tokens and Pledges of his tender and exceeding great Love in laying down his Life for the Sins of the whole World And if so then whatsoever is very apt and meet to express the inward esteem and veneration of our minds by can't be thought Unsutable and Repugnant to the Nature of the Lord's Supper Because that is a Religious Feast Instituted in Honour of our Lord and is a Solemn Act of Christian Worship performed to our Crucified Saviour Our meeting together at thâ—s Holy Feast in Obedience to his Commands to Commemorate his Death and tell of all his wondrous Works perpetuate the fame of our great Benefactor as much as in us lyes throughout all Ages is an External mark of the Honour and respect we bear towards him in our minds and is properly speaking that which we call Publick Worship Since to Bow our Knees then is allowed to be a proper mode of publick Worship and an External Sign of Reverence why should an adoring posture be thought Unmeet and Unsutable to the Sacrament which in its nature imports Worship and Adoration 3. No good Christian of what Party or Perswasion soever will deny but that to lift our Hands and Eyes to Heaven and to Employ our Tongues in Uttering the Praises of our Blessed Redeemer even in the Act of Receiving is very agreeable to the Nature of the Sacrament why then should Kneeling be thought Unsutable which is no more but onely Glorifying God and our Blessed Saviour with another part of our Body Why should the Gesture be scrupled at more than the Voice or the Bowing of my Knees be esteemed incongruous and unfitting any more than moving my Tongue or raising my Hands and Eyes to Heaven Especially if we consider that the high degree of Honour and Glory to which our Lord is advanced in the Heavens by God the Father as the reward of his Humble and Submissive Obedience here on Earth challenges from us all manner of Respect and Reverence both of Soul and Body He Humbled himself and became Obedient unto Death even the Death of the Cross Wherefore God hath highly exalted him and given him a Name which is above every Name that at the Name of Jesus Phil. 2. 8 9 10 11. every Knee should Bow c. and that every Tongue should Confess that Jesus Christ is Lord to the Glory of God the Father 4. The Holy Sacrament was Instituted in Remembrance of our Blessed Saviours Death and Sufferings And therefore I request all our Dissenting Brethren to Consult one place of Scripture concerning our Saviours Bodily Gesture or Deportment in the Heat and Extremity of his Passion wherein he presented himself before his Father in his Agony and Bloody Sweat in the Garden Being in an Agony he offered up this Prayer to his Father If thou be willing remove this Cup from Luke 22. 42 44. me Nevertheless not my Will but thine be done But after what manner or in what Gesture of Body did his perplexed Soul utter these earnest Supplications Why Kneeling or fixing his Knees upon the Earth Now though 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ver. 41. we may remember and meditate on our Saviours Sufferings in the Garden when his Soul was so exceeding Sorrowful when he was reduced to such a Weak and low Estate as to stand in need of Comfort and Support from an Angel though I say this may be done Sitting Ver. 43. yet sure no Sober and Considering Mind will say that to Celebrate the Memory of these Sufferings with bended Knees as his were on the Earth is an Improper and Unsutable behaviour to be used at the Sacrament where our proper work is to Commemorate the Death and Sufferings of our Saviour and particularly these among
Council or Mr. Prynne Apol. for lib. to tender Con. p. 75. printed 1662. Synod from Christs institution of the Lords Supper till above 1460 years after his Ascension Nor any one Rubrick in all the Liturgies Writings of the Fathers or Missals Breviaries Offices Pontificals Ceremonials of the Church of Rome it self that I could either find upon my best search or any other yet produced enjoyning Communicants to Kneel in the Act of Receiving Thus that inquisitive Gentleman assure us and in the same place backs his Report with the authority of the Reverend Dr. Burgesse whom he stiles the best and eminentest Champion for this Gesture of Bneeling of all others The sum of what Dr. Burgesse delivers concerning this matter is Dr. Burg. Ans rejoy to the Reply to Dr. Mort. gen Defence p. 478 478. this That Kneeling in the Act of Receiving was never any instituted Ceremony of the Church of Rome nor is at this day For this he cites Bellarmine and Durantus who make no mention of Kneeling in the Act of Receiving though they treat particularly of the Mass and the Ceremonies of the Roman Church Instead of this Durantus affirms That the Sacrament ought to be taken Standing and proves it also And so doth the Pope himself receive it Missal Rom. in the Rubr. set out by Pius V. when he celebrates and every Priest by order of the Mass-book is to partake standing reverently at the Altar and not Kneeling there The people which receive not as well as they that do receive are reverently to bow themselves to the Sacrament not when they receive it but when the Priest doth elevate the Patin or Chalice for Adoration or when the Host is carried to any sick person or in Procession And this is that Adoration which was first brought in by Pope Honorius the Third and not any Kneeling or Adoration in the Act of Receiving For these are the very words of the Decree That the Priests should frequently instruct their People to bow themselves reverently at the Elevation of the Host when Mass was Celebrated and Ut Sacerdotes frequenter doceant Plebem suam ut cum Elevatur Hostia Salutaris quisque se reverenter inclinet Idem faciens quum eam deferat Praesbyter ad infirmum Decret Greg. l. 3. tit 41. c. 10. in like manner when the Priest carried it abroad to the sick At the last the Doctor thus resolves upon the Question That Kneeling in the Act of Receiving was never any instituted Ceremony of the Church of Rome nor ever used when it was used by them for Adoration to the Sacrament as is falsly believed and talked of by many And with him a learned Papist agrees who in a Book purposely written for the Adoration of the Sacrament declareth Espencaeus de Adorat Euch. lib. 2. c. 16. That it is not much material in what Gesture it is performed whether Sitting Standing Lying or Kneeling And in the same place further informs us That the Kneeling Gesture had not obtained in the Church of Lyons in the year 1555 and when some endeavoured to obtrude it upon that Metropolis a stop was put to their proceeding by the Royal Authority Nothing needs more be said to give satisfaction in this matter and fix us when we have added what a very great man of our own Church now living hath delivered in writing viz. Although Dean of St. Paul's Unreasonableness of Separation p. 15. Kneeling at the Elevation of the Host be strictly required by the Roman Church yet in the Act of Recâ—iving it is not as manifestly appears by the Popes manner of Receiving which is not Kneeling but either Sitting as it was in Bonaventure 's time or after the fashion of sitting or a little leaning upon his Throne as he doth ot this day And now the matter is brought to a fine pass How outragious have the Adversaries of Kneeling been in their Clamours against the Church of England for appointing a Gesture that was first introduced and used by Antichrist and Idolaters and when the matter comes to be sifted not the least proof is produced to make good the Accusation but on the other side it appears that those two Postures which are so earnestly contended for by our Dissenting Brethren are the very Postures which the man of sin uses at this day himself in the Act of Receiving the Holy Sacrament When he celebrates Mass himself and upon some other Vid. Dr. Falk lib. Ecles p. 484 485. particular and solemn occasions he stands but generally and ordinarily he receives sitting or in a posture very like it And this Dr. Burg. lawful of Kneel p. 67. I desire may be remembred against we come to discourse on the second Head viz. that Kneeling is not therefore sinful because it is used by Idolaters If any should after all put the Question thus to me When is it say you that Kneeling first commenced in the World by whose means and upon what reasons my plain Answer is I cannot cerntainly tell nor can I find any account thereof among the ancient Records But this is no Argument against but rather for the ancient and universal use of this Gesture Novel Customs are easily traced to their Originals but generally the most ancient Usages of every Country are without Father and Mother and we cannot tell from what source they are derived 2. I am so far from thinking as our Dissenting Brethren do that Kneeling owes its birth to the Doctrine of Transubstantiation that I verily believe the contrary viz. Kneeling or an adoring posture used by the ancient Christians in the Act of Receiving did very much among other things conduce to beget and nurse up in the minds of Superstitious and Phanciful men a Conceit that Christ was really and corporally present at the Sacrament which Notion by subtil and inquisitive heads was in a little time improved and explained after this manner That after the Elements of Bread and Wine were consecrated they were thereby changed into the substance of Christs natural Body and Bloud This I am sure of that the Patrons of Transubstantiation did very early make use of this very Argument to prove that they taught and believed no more than what the Primitive Bishops and Christians did For what else could they intend or mean say they by that extraordinary Reverence and Devotion which they manifested when they received the dreadful Mysteries as they called the Bread and Wine if they were bare and empty signs onely and not changed into the very Body and Bloud of Christ which is in effect the very Argument used by Cassa enim videtur tot hominum huic Sacramento ministrantium vel adorantium veneranda sedulitas nisi ipsius Sacramenti longe major crederetur quam videretur veritas utilitas cum ergo exterius quasi nulla sint quibus tanta impenduntur venerationis obsequia aut insensati sumus aut ad intima mittimus magna salutis mysteria Alger
strongly enforc'd upon his Mind or in Prayers which among them are better compos'd and more fervently sent up unto God and in all other parts of Devotion which there are better fram'd and order'd to affect his Soul and make a truly Christian man These two things being explain'd and premis'd the Answer to the Question will be found true if we consider these following Reasons 1. That the Ground upon which the Question stands is false viz. There is not better Edification to be had in the Separate Meetings than in the Communion of the Church of England This will appear if we consider 1. How apt and fit the whole Constitution of the Church of England is to Edifie Mens Souls 2. That this Constitution is well us'd and manag'd by the Pastors of our Church for Edification The first will be manifest by Induction if we consider the several parts of her Constitution reducible to these following Heads 1. Her Creeds or Articles of Faith are those which our Dissenters themselves allow which are full and plain containing all Necessaries and Fundamentals in Religion nothing defective in Vitals or Integrals to make up the Body of a true Christian Church Christ that founded his Church best knew what was absolutely necessary to her being and there is nothing that he hath declar'd to be so but is contain'd in her Creeds Whatever is fundamental for us to know of the Nature of God is to be found there or by easie Consequences deduced from them Would we know what we ought to believe of the Nature of Christ or his Offices the Designs of his coming upon Earth the Constitution of his Reign and Government the Rewards and Punishments of his Laws the Times of Account and Retribution the mighty Miracles and extraordinary Acts of Providence to confirm these we may read them at large in Holy Writ and find wisely summ'd up in our Creeds Whose Articles to help the Memories of Men are short and few and to assist the dulness of their Understandings are manifest and plain they containing no more than what was some way or other either suppos'd before or included in or following from that brief Creed the Character of a true Christian that Jesus is the Christ the Son of God 1 John 4. 15. 5. 5. Whatever is any way reveal'd by God as necessary is an Article of our Faith nothing that is nice and obscure fit onely for dispute and wrangling is brought into our Creed all whose Articles are Primitive and of Divine right none of them purely speculative or curious but plain and useful in order to practice naturally leading to an Holy Life the end of all Religion We love every thing that is truly ancient and Apostolical but we cannot call that an eternal truth which was but yesterday and we are ready to embrace all truth but we cannot call that the High-Priest which is but the Fringe of his Garment We believe all that the early Christians in the first 300 Years thought sufficient for them to know and they were very secure that this would save them And if any truth be disguis'd or defac'd by the iniquity of the descending Ages we are ready to receive it whenever it is made clear and restor'd to its former shape and complexion we casting out obstinacy and perversness out of our Practice as well as niceness out of our Creed That Creed that Christ and his Apostles taught the Saints Martyrs and Confessors the Wise and Good Men in the first and purest days of Christianity believ'd and were secure of Heaven by it and therefore added no more that Faith this Church maintains which will sufficiently and effectually Edifie the Souls of Men. 2. The Necessity she lays upon a Good Life and Works For this is the solemn intention of all Religion our Creed our Prayers our Sacraments and Discipline and all Devotion Her Creed is such that all its Articles so directly or by natural consequence lead unto Virtue and Holiness that no man can firmly believe them but they must ordinarily influence his Manners and better his Conversation and if by virtue of his Creed his Life is not mended he either ignorantly and grosly mistakes their Consequences or is wilfully desperate Our Church publickly declares that without preparatory Virtues no Acts of Devotion however set off with Zeal and Passion are pleasing unto God and if obedience be wanting afterwards are but scene and show Such a Faith she lays down as fundamental to salvation which rests not in the brain and story in magnifying and praising in sighing and repeating but in the production of Mercy Charity and Justice and such excellent Virtues She makes no debates between Faith and Good Works nor argues nicely about the preference nor disputes critically the Mode how joyntly they become the condition of Salvation but plainly determines that without Faith and Good Works no Man shall see God She not onely keeps to a Form of sound Words but to a Conversation of equal Firmness and Solidity Her Festivals are to commemorate the Virtues of Excellent Men and to recommend them as Presidents for imitation Her Ceremonies which were principally design'd for Decency may also remind us of those Virtues which become the Worshippers of God Her Collects and Petitions are for Grace to subdue our Follies and to fortifie our resolutions for Holiness Her discipline is to lash the sturdy into Sobriety and Goodness And her Homilies are plainly and smartly to declare against the gross Acts of Impiety and to perswade a true Christian Deportment in Word and Deed and her whole Constitution aims at the Design of the Gospel to teach Men to live Soberly Righteously and Godly She flatters and lulls no man asleep in Vice but tells all secure sinners plainly that they do not pray nor receive aright that they are not absolv'd that their persons are not justified nor can have any true hopes of Heaven except they purifie themselves and be really just and good She neither useth nor allows any nice distinctions in plain Duties to baffle our Obedience nor suffers a cunning head to serve the designs of a wicked heart and teach Men learnedly to sin but urgeth plain Virtues laid down distinctly in Holy Writ and taught by Natural Reason and Conscience without calling them mean Duties or ordinary Morality to be the great Ornament of our Religion and the Soul of our Faith She sets no abstruse and phantastick Characters nor any Marks whose truth must be fetcht in by long deductions and consequences for Men to judge by whether they shall be sav'd or no but Faith and good Works which the Philosopher and meanest Christian can easily judge of The civil interest of a Nation is Edifi'd by such a Church pressing the necessity of good Works not onely thereby enforcing Peace and Justice Pity and Tenderness Humility and Kindness one towards another but she makes Kings safer and Subjects more secure condemning both Tyranny and Disobedience Parents more obey'd and
25. been many times said viz. that by things not Commanded are meant things forbidden and hath nothing to prove it by but only that the things mentioned in Scripture to which that phrase is applied were things forbidden as Idolatry c. Though what he produceth out of the Case be sufficient Case of Indifferent Things p. 20. yet he extreamly forgets himself when he saith nothing but only since in the page he quotes there are two arguments that are sooner flip'd than answered But however what hath he to reply to that which hath been many times said He grants It is true And is this nothing toward the proof of it What fitter way have we to find out the meaning of a phrase than to consider the several places where it is used Or to ascertain the sense of it than to shew that it 's always alike applied to such a case or thing But in answer to this he asks Why are such things express'd to us in this phrase as Not Commanded only 1st I answer they are not thus express'd as Not commanded Only For the things said to be not commanded are either in their own nature or in Scripture absolutely Forbidden as I have shewed and he grants and therefore to limit the phrase as if there was no more intended in it than that the things are not commanded as the Word Only implies and not also forbidden is to thwart Scripture as well as my reasoning from it 2ly If we take the Phrase as it is yet there his Question Why are they thus express'd and not commanded is of no Importance for supposing we could give no Reason for such an use of it that would not be sufficient to question the Thing as long as we find it constantly so used and applied But 3ly Was there no Reason offer'd no account given of it Let him peruse the Tract he opposeth as sure he did and he will find it expresly undertaken and two Reasons given for it as 1. Things forbidden are Case of Indiff Things pag. 23. called not commanded because all things prohibited are by consequence not commanded and not è contra 2. It 's by way of Meiosis c. But these though to the purpose in hand were not I am afraid to his Well! Let us consider 4ly What Account our Author himself gives at last of this 1. Saith he Things forbidden in Scripture are said to be not commanded To let us know the doing of a thing not commanded in God's Worship is Guilt enough Surely not so great as to do a thing notoriously Case Indiff Things pag. 20. forbidden as I there shewed Surely it can be no Guilt at all to do a thing not commanded if not also forbidden because as he owns there are Indifferent Things in the Worship of God and what are indifferent Things but Things not commanded as well as not forbidden 2. He saith it was so express'd because the Guilt of the Sin of Idolatry and Superstition lay in this that it was a thing not commanded had God commanded those things they had been a true Worship and acceptable In which assertion of his he grosly mistakes First as to the nature of Idolatry and Superstition when he saith the guilt of them lay in this that they were things not commanded Whereas it is evident that they were Sins because forbidden For what is Superstition but the dreading of that which is not to be dreaded as the Greek word shews Such as the Signs of Heaven Divinations and Daemons and even the unreasonable and inordinate fear of God himself When we fear Jer. 10. 2. offending him in what is not offensive to him And what is Idolatry but the giving Divine honour to that which is not God or prohibited honour to the true and only God These are things manifestly forbidden Secondly It 's yet a grosser Error which is contained in the reason he gives for it viz. That had God Commanded those things they had been a true Worship and acceptable An assertion First that confounds the Nature of things that makes Vice and Vertue alike and no otherwise discriminated but by Gods written Law as if Idolatry and Superstition were not Evil antecedent to all Revelation and which are so where Revelation is not as well as where it is Secondly From hence it follows that those things may be acceptable to God which in their own nature do tend to drive Religion out of the World and that may be true Worship which will unavoidably debase the Deity in the thoughts of Mankind For so do Idolatry and Superstition As for the Instances he there takes notice of I shall reserve them to a more convenient place Conclus 2. If things Indifferent be such as are neither Conclus Commanded nor Forbidden and that things are not unlawful because not Commanded then things thus Indifferent and not commanded are not additions to the Word Case of Indiff things p. 24. of God and the places usually insisted upon must be understood according to the sence I gave of them and which may serve as a sufficient reply to what he hath Case examined p. 26. said upon that Head But yet because he hath offer'd somewhat in another place that looks like an Argument I shall here consider it He argues thus If obedience be wanting the Salt is wanting to the Sacrifices Pag. 4. of our God which as we humbly conceive leaves no more room for perfective than corruptive Additions to Divine Worship c. What can be an act of Obedience to God but what he hath commanded whether he hath forbidden it or no If we bid our Servant go a mile and he goeth two possibly hoping to do us Service in it we hope his going the Second mile is no act of obedience though we did not forbid him In matters of this Nature no act of Supererogation is allowable because it can be no obedience In answer to which it will be necessary to resolve this Question Q. Whether the doing of any thing in the Worship of God without a command be a sinful addition to the Word of God I answer that if the Question is understood of the proper and essential parts of Worship if I may so speak then we grant it and say that he that shall institute any thing in that kind without Divine Institution doth challenge Gods prerogative to himself and because the rule is sufficient all such perfective are corruptive additions as he speaks to both Rule and Worship It is as if a Servant when bidden to go a mile he goeth two possibly hoping to do Service in it for in matters of this nature no Supererogation is allowable Thus far his comparison holds as to matters of the same Nature and design'd to the same end and esteemed to be of the same use As the going of two Miles for one with an intent to do as good Service and be as well if not better approv'd for so doing But if the question be
understood of such things as are Adjuncts to Divine Worship that are not used upon the score of any of the reasons aforesaid then we are not to expect a command nor do we Sin if we act without it As for example a Servant is required to go a Mile upon some service and he useth a Coat or a Cloak takes an Horse or goes on Foot puts a string about his Finger to remember him of what he is to do Or if to carry a Message considers what to say and Writes it down that he may be the better fitted to deliver it In such cases his Master would think him impertinent to ask Directions and it 's no Disobedience nor Supererogation to act as he sees fit without them And this is the case with us as I shall afterward shew This said there is way made for the next inference Conclus 3. If things Indifferent are neither commanded Conclus 3 nor forbidden and things are not unlawful because not commanded it follows that it 's no Derogation from the Sufficiency of Scripture to maintain the lawfulness of using such things in Divine Worship as are not therein commanded It 's somewhat a Specious way of arguing which this Author useth the Scriptures have determined whatsoever may make us wise to Salvation perfect p. 2â— throughly furnished to all good Works Now if the Worship of God be a good work and the right doing of it hath any tendency to make us perfect they must have a sufficiency to direct us in that And he concludes If there be not a Rule for all things belonging to the Worship of God except as before excepted c. then the Scriptures are not able to make us wise c. By this way of arguing and a challenge he immediately subjoyns viz. If our Author can shew us any Act of Worship c. It may be thought he is a Champion for the perfection and sufficiency of Scripture and we the derogators from it And that without any more ado he would have brought unanswerable arguments for that kind of Scripture-sufficiency which we deny If saith he our R. Author can shew us any Act of Worship for the Pag. 29. performance of which in such a manner as God will accept we cannot shew him direction of Scripture Well! where is it Scripture with the addition of such circumstances as are naturally necessary to all Humane Actions or evidently convenient for an action of a grave and weighty Nature for the obtaining the ends of it or appearing to any Common Judgment to be so decent that without them the performance would be sordid Scripture with the practice of the first Guides of the Church Scripture with the light of Nature shining out in every reasonable Soul c. Scripture with the exceptions before excepted in his Book pag. 21 Suppose then we put it to the question Is Scripture alone a sufficient Rule for matters to be used in the Worship of God He readily answers Yes If you take in the Nature of the thing the light shining in every reasonable Soul if you take in Common Judgment convenience and decency Lastly if you take in the practice of the first Guides of the Church that is it is and it is not Now how he hath all this while pleaded for that Sufficiency of Scripture which we deny And why he should so loudly exclaim against all Supplements and Additions to that and against pag. 38. Reason and Authority as a Supply or what difference he hath conceived betwixt Authority the Guides of the Church or betwixt Reason and the light of Nature Shining out in every reasonable Soul so as to deny to pag. 29. the one what he grants to the other I am not able to understand Yet for all this there must be a difference betwixt him and us and somewhat shall be said to make it out For the Sufficiency of Scripture is a very great argument And so indeed it is and it has been an old pag. 28. argument against the practices of our Church and is not to be easily parted with But yet what to give and what to take and wherein the difference is betwixt what we hold and he is forced to grant he knows not or has not been so kind as to discover But however when all this is pastover he concludes as to one part we cannot possibly agree with our R. Brother in this thing viz. That we have no such particular directions for Worship under the Gospel as they had under the Law This indeed I touched upon to shew that the Case of indifferent things pag. 30. faithfulness of Christ and sufficiency of Scripture consist not in giving as particular directions for Worship as they had under the Law and in proof of this I set Baptism against Circumcision the Lord's Supper against the Passover and Prayers against Sacrifices Now let us consider what are the reasons why he cannot possibly agree Certainly if ever controversie was like to be ended we may now expect it because it 's about plain matter of Fact But in this case he strangely fails of performance For whereas the deciding the case depends upon the comparison betwixt the Law and the Gospel he doth not so much as offer any thing about the latter But let us consider what he saith of the former and as much as we can make up his defect in the latter First he saith As to Circumcision what particular pag. 31. direction had the Jews Their Rule extended no further than to the Act and the time Here I must confess there is nothing but the time that is determined But since there is nothing of that kind in Baptism prescribed the Law is herein more particular than the Gospel 2ly As to the Passover he acknowledges they had a Rule but then he adds What Rule had they to determine them to a Kid or a Lamb But was not that a Rule to determine them when it must be a Kid or a Lamb and no other Creature and is not Two to all the Beasts in the world a determination as well as one to two But was there nothing else determined as his cautious way of expressing it would imply Let him consult the Text and he will find that the Creature was not only thus to be one Exod. 12. c. out of two but it was to be a Male kept the 14th day and to be killed at even without a bone broken to be roasted to be eaten in the house and with unleavened Bread with bitter Herbs and none left to the morning And they were to eat it standing as our Author acknowledges p. 32. with their loyns girt c. And with several other rites too long to enumerate But in the Lord's Supper there is nothing specified or required but the Elements and the breaking and pouring out nothing said of the kind of the Bread or Wine nothing required of the time or posture or number c.