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
do appear that all Men do agree in their Notions and Sense about this matter That without doubt which they all thus agree in is the true Notion and Sense of Conscience Now as to this we may oberve in the first Place that a Man never speaks of his Conscience but with respect to his own Actions or to something that hath the Nature of an Action which is done or omitted by him or is to be done or omitted Matters of meer Knowledg and Speculation we do not concern our Conscience with as neither with those things in which we are purely Passive as neither with Actions if they be not our own We do not for instance make it a Point of Conscience one way or other whether a thing be true or false or whether this or the other Accident that befals us be prosperous or unfortunate or whether another Man hath done good or bad Actions in which we are no way concerned These kind of things may indeed prove matters of great Satisfaction or Disquiet of Joy or Grief to us But we do not take our Conscience to be affected with them That word never comes in but with respect to something willingly done or left undone by us or which we may do or may forbear Secondly we may observe that in Common Speech we do not neither use this word Conscience about our Actions but only so far as those Actions fall under a Moral consideration that is as they have the Nature of Duties or Sins or as they are Lawful or Vnlawful Always when we speak of Conscience in our Actions we have respect to some Law or Rule by which those Actions are to be directed and govern'd and by their agreeableness or disagreeableness with which they become morally Good or Evil. Thirdly this being so the only thing remaining to be enquired into for the finding out what Conscience is is what can be reasonably thought to be our Sense and meaning when we use the word Conscience with such Application to our Actions as we have now said Now for that I desire it may be considered that when we talk of our Actions as we concern our Conscience in them they can but fall under these two Heads of Distinction that is to say in the first place we either consider our Actions as already done or omitted or we consider them as yet not done but as we are deliberating about them And then Secondly whether we consider them as done or not done as past or future yet we Rank them under one of these three Notions We either look upon them as Commanded by God and so to be Duties or as forbidden by God and so to be Sins or as neither Commanded nor forbidden and so to be indifferent Actions With these last Actions indeed Conscience is not properly or directly concerned but only by accident to wit as those indifferent Actions do approach to the Nature of Duties or Sins Our Actions I say do not touch our Conscience but as they fall under some of these Heads Now in all these Respects we have indeed different ways of bringing in Conscience but yet as it will appear we mean the same thing by it in them all First of all when we are considering an Action as yet not done if we look upon it as Commanded by God we say we are bound in Conscience to do it if we look upon it as a Sinful Action we say it is against our Conscience to do it if we look upon it as an indifferent thing we say we may do it or not do it with a Safe Conscience Now I pray what do we mean by these expressions I desire that every one would consult his own Mind and deny if he can that this is the Sense of his words If he saith he is bound in Conscience to do this or the other thing whether he doth not mean this that he verily thinks it is his Duty to do that Action If he saith that it is against his Conscience to do such an Action whether he means any more than this that he is perswaded in his Judgment that to do such an Action is an Offence against God If he saith that he can do it with a Safe Conscience whether he hath any other meaning than this that to the best of his Knowledg and Judgment the Action may be done without Transgressing any Law of God This is now undeniably the Sense that every Man in the World hath when he makes mention of Conscience as to Actions that are not yet done but only proposed to his Consideration So that taking Conscience as it respects our Actions to be done or omitted and as it is to Govern and Conduct them in which Sense we call Conscience a Guide or a Monitor and sometimes though very improperly a Rule of our Actions it can be nothing else in the Sense of all Men that use that word but a Mans Judgment concerning the goodness or badness the Lawfulness or Unlawfulness of Actions in order to the Conduct of his own Life But Secondly if we speak of our Actions that are done and past and consider Conscience with Reference to them here indeed we do a little vary the Expression about Conscience but the Notion of it is the same we have now given As for instance when we talk of Peace of Conscience or Trouble of Conscience with Reference to some Action we have done or omitted when we say My Conscience bears me Witness that I have Acted rightly and honestly in this Affair or my Conscience acquits me from blame as to this or the other Action or I am troubled in Conscience for doing what I have done If we turn these Phrases into other words we shall find that there is nothing more at the bottom of them than this that reflecting upon our own Actions we find that in this or the other instance we have either Acted or omitted as we are convinced in our Judgment we ought to do and the remembrance of this is some Pleasure and Satisfaction to us or we have done or forborn something contrary to what we take to be our Duty and the remembrance of this affects us with grief and trouble But still in both these instances of Expression that which we mean by Conscience is the same thing as in the former Cases viz. It is our Judgment and Perswasion concerning what we ought to do or ought not to do or Lawfully may do only here we add to it this Consideration that the Action which we are perswaded to be good or bad or indifferent is now done or omitted by us and we do remember it In the Former Case Conscience was considered as the Guide of our Actions In the latter Case it is considered as the Witness of our Actions But in both Cases Conscience is the Judge and consequently in both Cases the Notion of it is the same only with this difference that in the former it was a Mans mind making a Judgment what he ought
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
is a Rule of Conscience we are not only to understand the prime Heads and most general Dictates of it which are but a few but also all the necessary Deductions from those Heads And by the Law of Scripture as it is the Rule of Conscience we are not only to understand the express Commands and Prohibitions we meet with there in the letter of the Text but all the things likewise that by unavoidable Consequence do follow from those Commands or Prohibitions In a word when we are deliberating with our selves concerning the goodness or badness the Lawfulness or Unlawfulness of this or the other particular Action We are not only to look upon the letter of the Law but to attend further to what that Law may be supposed by a Rational Man to contain in it And if we be convinced that the Action we are deliberating about is Commanded or Forbidden by direct Inference or by Parity of Reason we ought to look upon it as a Duty or a Sin though it be not expresly Commanded or Forbidden by the Law in the letter of it And if neither by the letter of the Law nor by Consequence from it nor by Parity of Reason the Action before us appear either to be Commanded or Forbidden In that Case we are to look upon it as an indifferent Action which we may do or let alone with a safe Conscience or to express the thing more properly we are to look upon it as an Action in which our Conscience is not so much concerned as our Prudence III. Having thus given an account of the Rule of Conscience that which Naturally follows next to be considered with Reference to our present design is what share Humane Laws have in this Rule of Conscience whether they be a part of this Rule and do really bind a Mans Conscience to the Observance of them or no which is our Third general Head Now as to this our Answer is that though the Laws of God be the great and indeed the only Rule of Conscience yet the Laws of Men generally speaking do also bind the Conscience and are a part of its Rule in a Secondary Sense that is by Vertue of and in Subordination to the Laws of God I shall briefly explain the meaning of this in the Four following Propositions First there is nothing more certain than that the Law of God as it is declared both by Nature and Scripture doth Command us to Obey the Laws of Men. There is no one Dictate of Nature more Obvious to us than this that we are to Obey the Government we Live under in all honest and Just things For this is indeed the Principal Law and Foundation of all Society And it would be impossible either for Kingdoms or States for Citys or Families to subsist or at least to maintain themselves in any Tolerable degree of Peace and Happiness if this be not acknowledged a Duty And then as for the Laws of God in Scripture there is nothing more plainly declared there than that it is Gods Will and our Duty to Obey them that have the Rule over us and to Submit our selves to every Ordinance of Man for the Lords sake and to be Subject not only for Wrath but for Conscience sake So that no Man can doubt that he is really bound in Duty to Obey the Laws of Men that are made by Just and Sufficient Authority And Consequently no Man can doubt that Humane Laws do really bind the Conscience and are one part of the Rule by which it is to be directed and Governed But then having said this we add this farther in the Second Place that Humane Laws do not bind the Conscience by any Vertue in themselves but meerly by Vertue of Gods Law who has Commanded that we should in all things be Subject to our Lawful Governours not only for Wrath but for Conscience sake Conscience is not properly concerned with any Being in the World save God alone it hath no Superiour but him For the very Notion of it as I have often said is no other than our Judgment of what things we are bound to do by Gods Law what things we are Forbidden to do by Gods Law So that all the Men in the World cannot bind any Mans Conscience by Vertue of any Power or Authority that is in them But now God having made it an everlasting Law both by Nature and Scripture that we should Obey those who are set over us whether they be our Parents or our Masters and much more our Princes and the Soveraign Legislative Power under whom we Live by Vertue of this Command of God and this only we are for ever bound in Conscience to Govern our Actions by the Commands that they impose upon us and those Commands of theirs are a Rule though a Consequential or a Secondary Rule by which we are to Govern our Conscience because they are the Instances of our Obedience to the Laws of God But then in the Third Place this is also to be remembered that Humane Laws do no farther bind the Conscience and are a Rule of it than as they are agreeable to the Laws of God If any Law or Command of Man do Clash with any Law of God that is if it be either Evil in it self or Contradictory to the Duty of Christians as laid down in the Scriptures in that Case that Law or Command by what Humane Authority soever it was made or given doth not bind our Conscience nor is any Rule of our Actions On the contrary we are not at any Rate to yield Obedience to it but we are here reduced to the Apostles Case and must Act as they did that is we must Obey God rather than Men and we Sin if we do not For since God only hath proper and direct Authority over our Conscience and Humane Power only by Delegation from him And since God hath not given any Commission to the most Soveraign Princes upon Earth to alter his Laws or to impose any thing upon his Subjects that is inconsistent with them It follows by necessary Consequence that no Man can be Obliged to Obey any Laws of Men farther than they are agreeable to and consistent with the Laws of God There is yet a Fourth thing necessary to be taken in for the clearing the Point we are upon and that is this That though Humane Laws generally speaking may be said to bind the Conscience and to be a part of its Rule Yet we do not Assert that every Humane Law though it doth not interfere with any of Gods Laws doth at all times and in all Cases Oblige Every Mans Conscience to Active Obedience to it so as that he Sins against God if he Transgress it No it would be a very hard thing to affirm this and I do not know what Manamong us upon these Terms would be Innocent Thus much I believe we may safely lay down as a Truth That where either the Matter of the Law is of such a Nature
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
Evil thing in compliance with it My Judgment is as we have said the guide of my Actions but it may through my negligence be so far misguided it self as that if I follow it it will lead me into the most horrid Crimes in the World And will it be a sufficient Excuse or Justification of my Action in such a Case to say that indeed herein I did but Act according to my Perswasion No verily I may as certainly be damn'd without Repentance for Acting according to my Judgment in some Cases where it is mistaken as I shall be for Acting contrary to it in other Cases where it is rightly informed And the Reason of this is very plain It is not my Judgment or Perswasion that makes Good or Evil Right or Wrong Justice or Injustice Vertue or Vice But it is the Nature of things themselves and the Law of God and of Men under that Commanding or Forbidding things that makes them so If the Moral Goodness or badness of Actions was to be measured by Mens Opinions and Perswasions then Good and Evil Duty and Sin would be the most various uncertain things in the World They would change their Natures as often as Men change their Opinions and that which to Day is a Vertue to Morrow would be a Crime and that which in one Man would be a Heroically good Action would in another Man be a Prodigious Piece of Villany though yet there was no difference in the Action it self or in the Circumstances of the Man that did it save only the difference of Opinion But such consequences as these are intolerable nor indeed do Men either talk or think after this manner Every Man when he speaks of Good or Evil Lawful or Unlawful means some certain fixed thing which it is not in his Power to alter the Nature and Property of That Action is good and a Duty which is either so in it self or made so by some positive Law of God And that Action is Evil and a Sin that is Forbid by God in either of these Ways So that unless it was in our Power to change the Nature of things or to alter the Laws of God It will unavoidably follow that we shall be for ever Obliged to do some Actions and to forbear others whatever our Judgment concerning them is And consequently we may be Guilty of Sin if in these instances we Act contrary to this Obligation though at the same time it should happen that we are firmly perswaded that we ought so to do And thus is our Proposition fully proved but then for the further clearing of it I desire it may be taken notice of that we do not thus lay it down that every mistake of Judgment about Good or Evil doth involve a Man in Sin if he Act according to that mistake But only thus the mistake of a Mans Judgment may be of such a Nature that as it will be a a Sin in him to Act against it so it will likewise be Sin to Act according to it It is not every Error in Morals that brings a Man under the necessity of Sinning if he pursues it in his Actions A Mans Conscience may mistake its Rule in a Hundred instances and yet he may safely enough Act according to it And the Reason is because a Man may entertain a great many mistakes and false Notions of his Duty and Act according to them too and yet in such Actions he shall not Transgress any Law of God Now this that I say holds chiefly in these two inslances For example in the first place if a Man believe a thing to be Commanded by God which yet indeed is not but neither is it Forbidden As if a Man should think himself Obliged to retire himself from his business Seven times or Three times a Day for the purpose of Devotion or to give half of his Yearly Income to Pious and Charitable uses if he can do it without Prejudice to his family Now in this Case he is certainly mistaken in his Duty for the Law of God hath not bound him up to such measures in either of these instances But yet because God hath not on the other hand laid any Commands upon him to the contrary it is certain he may in both these instances Act according to this mistake without any Guilt in the World Nay so long as that mistake continues he is bound to Act accordingly Again in the second place if a Man believe a thing to be Forbidden by Gods Law which yet is not but neither is it Commanded As for instance if a Man think that he ought by Vertue of a Divine Command to abstain from all Meats that are strangled or have Bloud in them or if he believe it unlawful to Play at Cards or Dice or that it is Forbidden by Gods word to let out Money at Interest Why in all these Cases he may follow his Opinion though it be a false one without Sin Nay he is bound to follow it because it is the dictate of his Conscience however his Conscience be mistaken And the reason is plain because though he be mistaken in his Judgment about these matters yet since God hath not by any Law Forbid these things there is no Transgression follows upon Acting according to such a mistake But then in other Cases where a Mans mistake happens to be of such a Nature as that he cannot Act according to his Conscience but he Transgresseth some Law of God by which Conscience ought to be Governed As for instance when a Man looks upon that as a Lawful Action or as a Duty which God hath Forbidden or looks upon that as a Sin or at least an indifferent Action which God hath Commanded here it is that the mistake becomes dangerous And in such Cases the Man is brought into that sad Dilemma we have been representing viz. That if he Act according to his perswasion he Transgresseth Gods Law and so is a Sinner upon that Account If he Acts against his perswasion then he is self condemned and very guilty before God upon that Account Well but is there no avoiding of this Must it be laid down as a constant Universal Truth that in all Cases where a Mans Judgment happens to be contrary to the Rule of his Duty Commanding or Forbidding an Action he must of necessity Sin whether he Act or not Act according to that Judgment If indeed he Act against his Conscience it is readily granted he Sins But it seems very hard that he should be under a necessity of Sinning when he Acts according to it especially when he is perfectly ignorant of or mistaken in the Law against which he Offends This is indeed the great difficulty that occurs in this matter and for the untying it I lay down this third general Proposition viz. That the great thing to be attended to in this Case of a Mans following a mistaken Judgment is the Culpableness or Inculpableness the Faultiness or Innocence of the mistake
the Established Worship I lay down this general Proposition That if the Principles I have laid down about Conscience be admitted then it is certainly true that no Man among us can justly plead Conscience for his Separation from the Church of England or can say that it is against his Conscience to joyn in Communion with it but only such a one as is perswaded in his own mind that he cannot Communicate with us without Sinning against God in so doing For since as we have said Conscience is nothing else but a Mans Judgment concerning Actions whether they be Duties or Sins or Indifferent And since the Law of God Commanding or Forbidding Actions or neither Commanding them nor Forbidding them is the only Rule by which a Man can Judg what Actions are Duties and what are Sins and what are Indifferent It plainly follows that as a Man cannot be bound in Conscience to do any Action which it doth not appear to him that Gods Law hath some way or other Commanded and made a Duty So neither can it go against a Mans Conscience to do any Action which he is not convinced that Gods Law hath some way or other Forbidden and so made a Sin And therefore in our present Case That Man only can justly plead Conscience for his Nonconformity that can truly say he is perswaded in his Judgment that Conformity is Forbidden by some Law of God Or which is the same thing No Man can say it is against his Conscience to joyn in our Communion but only such a one as really believes he shall Sin against some Law of God if he do joyn with us If against this it be excepted that it is very possible for a Man to be well satisfied that there is nothing directly Sinful in our Worship but yet for all that it may be against his Conscience to joyn with us in it As for instance in the Case where a Man takes it really to be his Duty to hold constant Communion with some other Congregation where he believes he can be more Edified or to which he is related by some Church Covenant To this I answer that in this Case I grant Conscience is rightly pleaded for Separation though how justifiably I do not now Examine But then I say this Plea proceeds upon the same grounds I just now laid down For if the Man as is supposed in the Case be convinced that it is his Duty by Gods Law as there is no other measure of Duty to hold Communion with others and not with us then he must at the same time be convinced that he cannot without Transgression of Gods Law that is without Sin joyn with us And that is the same Account which we give of its being against any Mans Conscience to hold Communion with us Further If it be urged against our Proposition that not only in the Case where a Man is perswaded of the Unlawfulness of our Communion but also in the Case where he only doubts of the Lawfulness of it a Man may justly plead Conscience for his Nonconformity so long as those doubts remain And therefore it is not truly said of us that in Order to the Pleading Conscience for Nonconformity one must be perswaded in his own mind that Conformity is Forbidden by some Law of God I Answer that if the Man who thus doubts of the Lawfulness of Conformity hath really entertain'd this Principle that it is a Sin to do any thing with a doubting Conscience I grant that it must go against his Conscience to conform so long as he doubts But then this is but the same thing we are contending for for therefore it goes against his Conscience to Communicate with us doubting as he doth because he believes he shall Sin against God if he should But if the Man we are speaking of do not think it a breach of Gods Law to Act with a doubting Conscience then I do not see how it can in the least go against his Conscience to Communicate with us upon that pretence So that notwithstanding these two Exceptions which are all I can think of it will still remain true that no Man can justly Plead Conscience for his Separation from the Church but he that is perswaded that he cannot joyn with it without Sinning against God Now if this Proposition be true as certainly it is then how many Mens pretences to Conscience for their Separating from us are hereby cut off And indeed how few in Comparison of the multitude of Dissenters among us will be left that can be able with Truth to say that it is against their Conscience to Communicate with us in our Prayers and in our Sacraments In the first Place it is Evident that all those who Separate from us upon Account of any private grudge or pique because they have been disobliged or have received some disappointment in the way of our Church or by the Men that are favourers of it and therefore out of a Pet will joyn themselves to another Communion All those that think they can serve their own turns more effectually by being of another way as for instance they can thereby better please a Relation from whom they have expectances they can better advance their Trade or increase their Fortunes they can better procure a Reputation or regain one that is Sunk In a word all those that to serve any ends of Pride or Interest or Passion or out of any other worldly Consideration do refuse us their Company in the Worship of God I say all such are certainly excluded from Pleading Conscience for their Separation In the second Place all those Lay People who refuse our Communion upon Account that the Pastors and Teachers whom they most Love and Reverence are not permitted to Exercise their Function among us whose Pretence it is that if these good Men were allowed to Teach in our Churches they would come to our Congregations but so long as that is refused they will hear them where they can I say all these are likewise excluded from Pleading Conscience for their Separation For however it may really and truly be against the Conscience of their Ministers to conform there being other things required of them than of ordinary People yet it is not against their Conscience so to do for they know no ill in Conformity but only that so many good Men are silenced In the third Place all those that refuse our Communion upon a meer dislike of several things in our Church Offices They do not for instance like a Form of Prayer in general and they have several things to Object against our Form in particular they do not like our Ceremonies they do not like the Surplice or the Cross in Baptism and sundry other things they find fault with Not that they have any thing to say against the Lawfulness of these things but only they have an Aversion to them All these Men likewise are cut off from Pleading Conscience for their Separation For they do
it But on the other side he hath no Doubt but is very well assured that he may Lawfully let it alone Or on the contrary he is very well satisfied that the Action is Lawful and that he may do it But he doubts whether Gods Law hath not made it a Duty so that he cannot Lawfully omit it This is that which we call a Single Doubt We call that a Double Doubt where 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 for any thing he knows made it a Duty But on the other side so is the Action circumstantiated with respect to him or he with respect to it that he doubts whether he be not bound to forbear the Action as it is now presented to him Gods Law having for any thing he knows forbid it So that he is at a loss what to do because he fears he may sin whether he doth the Action or doth it not I say it will be impossible to put any doubtful Case wherein a mans Conscience is concerned which will not fall under one of these two Heads I. Now as to the Case of a Single Doubt we may thus apply the General Rule That when a man doubts only on one side of an Action there it is more Reasonable to chuse that side of the Action concerning which he hath no Doubt than the other concerning which he Doubts supposing all other Considerations be equal And here comes in that famous Maxim which hath obtained both among Christians and Heathens Quod dubitas ne feceris which with the restriction I have now mentioned will for ever be good Advice in all Cases of this Nature It must needs be unreasonable to venture upon any Action where a man hath the least Fear or Suspicion that it is possible he may transgress some Law of God by it when it is in his power to Act without any Fear or Suspicion of that kind supposing all along this Consideration of the possibility of offending by this Action be not over-ballanced and so the Fear of it removed by other Considerations which the Circumstances of the Action do suggest Thus for Instance Here is a Man Doubts whether it be allowable in a Christian to drink a Health or put out Money to Interest or to go to Law as having conversed with such Men or such Books as do condemn these Practices and that not without some Colour from the Word of God The man is not indeed so convinced by their Discourses as to have taken up any Opinion or Perswasion that these Practices are unlawful nor would he censure any man that uses them because he sees there are as Good Men and for any thing he knows as good Arguments for the other side But he is not so clear in his judgment about these Points as to be able to pronounce any thing positively concerning them either way He cannot say that he believes them Lawful though he is not perswaded that they are unlawful which is the true state of a Doubting mind Now in these and all other such like Cases the Rule is plain That while a mans judgment continues thus in suspence it is more Reasonable for him to forbear these Practices For there is no pretence of obligation upon him from Gods Law to engage in any of them and why should he rashly throw himself into danger by venturing upon an Action concerning which he is uncertain whether it be Lawful or no He runs no hazard by forbearing these things but if he practise them he doth Thus far is right But then as I said this is always to be understood with this Proviso Caeteris paribus For if there should happen to be such other Considerations in the Action as have force enough to over-ballance this Consideration of Vncertainty it will then be reasonable to chuse that side of the Action concerning which I did before doubt rather than that of which I had no doubt at all Thus if the Man that makes a Question about any of the three things I before mentioned should light into such Circumstances that for Instance he must either drink such a single Health or a quarrel is like to ensue nay and that perhaps to the danger of some of the Lives of the Company Or again that he has no means of improving his Money in which his whole Fortune consists in any other way but by that of Vsury so that he and his Family must in time starve unless they be maintained by this Course Or lastly if an Orphan be trusted to his Care and the Estate of that Orphan is so entangled that he must be put upon the necessity either of waging a Law Suit for the clearing it or suffering his near Relation committed to his Charge to be defrauded of his Right I say if the Cases happen to be thus circumstantiated he that before doubted in General whether it was Lawful to drink a Health or to put out money to Vsury or to ingage in Law-Suits may I should think certainly satisfie himself that it is not only Lawful but Expedient in this particular Case notwithstanding his General Doubt to do any of these things and if he be a Wise Man he will make no Scruple of Acting accordingly Indeed he cannot be well excused if he do not thus Act. For it will not be sufficient to say I doubt whether these Practices are Lawful or Vnlawful and therefore I dare not ingage in them Why Man if you only Doubt about them you do by this ackonwledge that for any thing you know they may be Lawful as well as that for any thing you know they may be Vnlawful And if you be thus in aequilibrio sure such pressing Considerations as those which are presented in this Case ought to turn the Ballance Otherwise I do not know how you will answer either to your self or the World for the Consequences that may ensue For my part in such Cases as these I should think that nothing less than a Belief or Perswasion that the thing in Question is unlawful will justifie a mans Prudence in Acting on that side which he calls the Safer and which had not these Circumstances happened would really have been so To conclude if a great Good may be compassed or a great Evil may be avoided by doing a thing concerning which we have a General Speculative Doubt whether it be Lawful or no This very Consideration is in Reason sufficient to silence the Doubt That is it is enough to perswade us that it is not only Lawful but Advisable to do that in the present Circumstances which before and out of those Circumstances we Doubted in general whether it was Lawful to be done or no. II. And thus much concerning the Rule by which we are to proceed in the Case of a Single Doubt I now come to consider that which we call a Double Doubt and to shew what is to be
Duty that he generally takes the opportunities that are offered him of doing Honour to our Lord by partaking in his Supper though perhaps he is not often very well satisfied about his Preparation But so it happens that since his last Communicating he finds his Mind in a much worse frame than it used to be He hath lived more loosly and carelesly than he was wont or perhaps he hath been very lately guilty of some grievous sin that lies heavy upon his Conscience So that when his next usual time of Receiving comes he cannot but apprehend himself in a very unfit condition to Communicate in so sacred a Mystery Upon this he is in a great perplexity what to do For on the one side he thinks he hath more reason to believe that he offends God if he comes to the Sacrament in these Circumstances than if he forbears because he is more certain that there is a Law of God that forbids him to come unworthily than he is certain that there is a Law of God that commands him to receive every time that he hath opportunity But now on the other hand if it should prove that he is really bound by Gods Law to Commemorate the Death of Christ in the Sacrament every time that an opportunity is offered He is sensible in that Case it is a greater sin to neglect this Duty than to perform it unworthily so long still as he performs it out of Conscience What now is the Man to do in these Circumstances This is an exact Instance of the Case I spoke to in my third Proposition where on one side the Man runs a greater danger of sinning but on the other side if he should prove mistaken he sins in a greater degree Now for a Resolution of this Case I say That if the Question be put concerning the Mans absenting himself only once or twice from the Communion in order to the exercise of Repentance and the putting himself into a better frame of mind against another opportunity The Answer according to our Third Proposition must be this That it is very reasonable thus to do And there is good ground for this Answer For certainly a Man is more in danger of sinning if he receive unworthily than if he do not receive every time that there is a Communion There being an express Law against the one but no express Law obliging to the other For Christ hath no more appointed that we should receive the Sacrament so many times in a year than he hath appointed that we should Pray so many times in a day or that we should give such a determinate proportion of our Annual Income to Charitable Uses As to these things he hath bound us in the General but as to the Particulars the Circumstances of our Condition and the Laws of our Superiors are to determine us Only this we are to remember that the oftner we perform these Duties it is the better and we can hardly be said to be Christians if we do not perform them frequently This now being so Though it be true that a Man would be guilty of a greater sin if he should at any time though but once abstain from the Communion than if he should come to it with such unworthiness as we are here speaking of supposing that Christs Law had precisely tied him up to communicate every time that a Communion is appointed Yet since there is so little appearance of Reason to conclude that Christ has thus tied him up and withal on the other hand he runs so certain a danger of sinning if he should Communicate at this time apprehending himself to be so unworthy as he doth This Consideration of the certain danger must needs in this Case overballance the other of the greater sin and make it appear more Reasonable to the Man to suspend his receiving to another Opportunity against which time he hopes to be better prepared than to adventure upon it in his present Circumstances But then if the Question be put concerning the Mans absenting himself Customarily and Habitually from the Lords Table upon this account of unworthiness that which I have now said will not hold For in this Case the Man is in as much danger of sinning by not receiving at all as by receiving unworthily nay and a great deal more as I shewed in my first particular about this Case And withal he is guilty of a much greater sin in wholly withdrawing from the Sacrament than in coming to it though with never so great Apprehensions of his own unworthiness as I shewed in my second And therefore since the danger is at least equal on both sides he must chuse that side on which the least sin lies That is to say he must Communicate frequently at least so often as the Laws of the Church do enjoin him which is three times a year though he be in danger of doing it unworthily rather than not Communicate at all Having thus gone through Three of our Propositions concerning a Double Doubt All that remains is to put our Case about the Sacrament so as that it may serve for an Instance or Illustration of our fourth and last Here therefore we are to suppose our Doubting Man to be in such a Condition that he apprehends he runs an equal danger of sinning whether he receives the Sacrament or receives it not And withall so unskilful a Judge is he of the morality of Actions that he apprehends no great difference in the degree of the sin whether he do the one or the other In this Case now all the Man can do is to consider what Inducements he has in Point of Prudence or Interest to do or to forbear the Action he doubts about for since all other Considerations in the Case are equal those of this kind are to turn the Ballance according to our Fourth Proposition But if the Case turn upon this Point I dare say no man will be long doubtful whether he should frequent the Sacrament in obedience to the Laws or forbear it For it is plain that he Acts more Prudently and more consults his own Advantage both Temporal and Spiritual As for the Temporal Advantages which a Man receives by obeying the Laws in this matter I will not now insist on them though they are neither few nor inconsiderable That which I desire chiefly to be here considered is this That in point of Spiritual Advantages it is much more advisable for our Doubtting Person to come to the Sacrament than to abstain from it For by frequenting this Ordinance he takes the best method both to grow more worthy if he be now unworthy and likewise to cure the Doubts and Scruples he is now troubled with But if he neglect this means of Grace he not only takes an effectual course to increase and perpetuate his Fears and Doubts it being very probable that the longer he defers his receiving the Sacrament still the more doubtful will he be of his being qualified for it But also is
and have used our best endeavours to satisfie our selves how the Law of God stands as to that matter there the Command of our Superiours is to over-rule our Doubt But further to shew what little force there is in this Argument which indeed hath made a great deal of noise we will try whether it will not make as much against our Adversaries if they will give us leave to put the Case as it seems to make against us when they put the Case Let us suppose therefore as before that an Israelite was very Doubtful whether Jehovah or Baal was the true God And let us suppose likewise as we reasonably may that the King of Israel made a Law that all the Temples and Altars of Baal should be demolished and that Jehovah only should be worshipped What advice now would they give to the doubting Man in this Case Will they say that he must comply with the Kings Laws and worship Jehovah only while yet he is doubtful in his own mind whether Baal be not the true God Why this is against their own Principle and gives away the Cause to us But will they then say that while this Doubt remains the Man must not obey Authority in worshipping Jehovah only but he must either worship Baal and not Jehovah or both Baal and Jehovah together Why this is indeed agreeable to their Principle but then I appeal to my Reader whether according to their way of resolving of Doubts a man is not as necessarily ingaged in Idolatry and other grievous sins as he is by our way So that you see this Argument concludes as strongly against them as against us But in Truth it concludes nothing either one way or other but is wholly Forreign to the Question as I shewed in my stating of it whither I refer the Reader The Second Argument is drawn from the Limitations which God himself hath put to the Obedience we are to pay to our Governours and it may be formed thus God hath not commanded us to obey our Superiours absolutely and in all things but only in all such things as are not contrary to his Law So that where ever we are uncertain whether the Commands of our Superiour be Lawful or no we must at the same time be as much uncertain whether we be bound to obey And if so how can you say that it is any more our Duty to obey them than to disobey them in a Doubtful Case To this we answer That though we acknowledge that no Man is bound to obey his Superiours any farther than they command Lawful things Yet when ever it happens that they command such things as we equally doubt whether they be Lawful or no there are so many weighty Reasons to be given why a man should obey rather than disobey in that Case as will perswade any Wise and Good Man to think it his Duty to obey And for those Reasons I refer my Reader to the Five Particulars I before insisted on The Third and indeed the Principal Argument is drawn from the words of St. Paul in the 14th of the Romans and the last verse He that doubteth is damned if he eat beause he eateth not of Faith and whatsoever is not of Faith is sin From whence they thus Argue If it was a sin in those Christians that St. Paul speaks of to eat any Food though in it self Lawful to be eaten so long as they Doubted whether it was Lawful or no Then by parity of Reason it must be a sin to do any other Action so long as we have a Doubt in our minds concerning the Lawfulness of it and if so it is not the Magistrates commanding that Action that will make it cease to be a sin in us to do it This is the great Argument that is brought against our Point and I shall give it a full and a just discussion Because in truth if we come clearly off from this Text of St. Paul not only all that is said against Obeying Authority with a Doubting Conscience will fall to the ground But likewise most of the difficulties which entangle and perplex the Case of a Doubting Conscience in other matters will be in a great measure removed But before I enter upon a particular discussion of this Text with reference to our present Controversie it will be needful to premise some general Account of it for the sake of ordinary Readers that so understanding before hand the Case which the Apostle speaks to and the meaning of the Expressions he here useth they may be the better able to go along with us First therefore I shall give an Account of the Subject matter of St. Paul's Discourse in this Chapter II. Of what is meant by Doubting in this Text. III. What is meant by eating not of Faith IV. What is meant by being Damned or Condemned for so doing First As to the Subject Matter of St. Paul's Discourse in this Chapter it is undoubtedly the Case of those Jewish Christians that were not so fully instructed in their Christian Liberty but that they still believed all the Ceremonial Laws of Moses concerning the Observation of Days and the Difference of Meats to be still in force and to oblige their Conscience Or at least they mightily doubted whether they did or not So that whereas other Christians who were better instructed made no scruple of eating any kind of Food though forbidden by the Law of Moses These men had great Reason to forbear such kind of Meats because they were Perswaded or at least it appeared more probable to them than otherwise that they were bound so to do That this was the Case of those that St. Paul here styles the weak Christians appears from several passages of this Chapter nor I think is it much questioned by any As for what is intimated in the second Verse concerning their abstaining from Flesh altogether and only eating Herbs which would make one think that it was not purely their respect to the Law of Moses but some other thing which made them thus to put a difference between Meats because by that Law they were no more tyed from Flesh excepting only Swines-Flesh and a few other sorts than they were from Herbs St. Chrysostome hath well obviated this difficulty in the Account he gives of the Case of those Christians There were saith he several of the Believing Jews who taking themselves to be obliged in Conscience by the Law of Moses even after their Christianity did still retain the Observation of Meats not daring wholly to throw off the Yoak of the Law These now lest they should be found out and reproached by the other Christians for thus abstaining from Swines-Flesh and the like upon account of Conscience chose to eat no Flesh at all but to feed altogether upon Herbs that so this way of living of theirs might pass rather for a kind of Fast or Religious Abstinence than for a Legal Observance Thus St. Chrysostome and to the same purpose Theodoret and
affirm it in our present Case of Obeying Authority For it is certain that many Men are and I believe all Men may be satisfied that in a purely doubtful Case it is not only more reasonable but their Duty to Obey their Superiours Well But it will be said Do not we here talk contradictions Can a Man have Faith about an Action that is be resolved in his own Conscience that such an Action is to be done or may lawfully be done and yet Doubt concerning it at the same time I Answer This is so far from being a Contradiction that it is a Case that every day happens where a Man hath a Doubt on both sides as it is in the Instance before us A man often hath very great Doubts of the Lawfulness of this or the other Action when he considers the Action in general But yet when he comes to weigh the Circumstances he is in and the Reasons he hath in those Circumstances for the doing the Action he may be perswaded that it is better for him to do the Action than to let it alone notwithstanding all the Doubts he hath about it That is Though he doubt of the Lawfulness of the Action it self considered without his present Circumstances yet as it comes Circumstantiated to him he doth not doubt but it may be lawfully done by him But of this I have spoke largly before in my Explication of the Rule of a Doubting Conscience But is not all Doubting contrary to Faith I answer No it is not For such kind of Doubting as we here speak of doth we see very well consist with Faith My meaning is it is not necessary in order to a Mans having Faith about an Action that all his Doubts concerning that Action should be destroyed it is abundantly sufficient that they be over-ballanced That which I would say is this Whereever a man hath such a degree of Perswasion touching any Action he is deliberating about that he believes it more advisable to a reasonable man all things considered to do than Action than to forbear it such a man hath all the Faith that is needful to the doing that Action with a safe Conscience though in the mean time he may have such Doubts concerning that Action as will perhaps be too hard for him to resolve and will create him likewise some trouble and uneasiness in the doing of it Though indeed to speak properly I think these ought not any longer to be called Doubts after they are thus over-ruled or over-ballanced but rather to go under the Name and Notion of pure Scruples which the Casuists of all Perswasions do not only allow but advise that a man should act against In plain English That Doubtfulness about an Action which St. Paul speaks of and which he Censures as a sin was such a Doubtfulness as after the Action was done rendred the man Self-condemned his Conscience could not but reproach him for doing as he did But now in our Case the Man is not at all Self-condemned because he hath the Testimony of his Conscience that he hath acted according to the best of his Judgment and Discretion Though he acts with a Doubt yet he is satisfied he hath made the most reasonable Choice that he could in his Circumstances And whereever a man doth so he both acts in Faith and without any danger of Condemnation from his own Conscience So that after all the Bustle that is made about doing or forbearing an Action with a Doubting Conscience you see there is no great intricacy in the Case nor any necessity of sinning on both hands always supposing a man to be Sincere and Honest For if he be really so he will always do that which he judges most according to his Duty or at least that which he judges to be consistent with it and whereever a man doth thus it is certain he Acts with a safe Conscience notwithstanding any Doubt he may have about the Action Because more than the former a man cannot do and more than the latter he is not bound to do As for what sins an Erroneous Conscience may ingage a man in or what troublesome Reflections a Melancholly Imagination may occasion to him in these Cases I am not to answer for them they are of another Consideration IV. Having thus largly treated of the Nature of a Doubting Conscience and of the Rules by which a man is to Act whenever it happens and that both when he is left at his own Liberty and when he is under the the Commands of others All that remains to be done is to speak something about the Authority or Obligation of a Doubting Conscience which is our Fourth and last general Head But in truth the Discussion of this might very well be spared after what I have said relating to this Argument in several places of the foregoing Discourse particularly under my last Head However I shall endeavour to give some Account of this Point though I intend it a very short one because indeed what I have to offer is not so much any new matter as an Application of the Principles I have before laid down to our present purpose The Point in question is concerning the Authority of a Doubting Conscience Or Whether a Doubting Conscience doth bind at all and how far In answer to this I say in general It is certain that a Doubting Conscience of it self lays no Obligation at all upon a man any way Indeed it is a kind of Contradiction to suppose that it should For I pray What is the Notion of a Doubting Conscience but this That a man is uncertain or unresolved in his mind whether as to this particular Action he be bound or not bound To suppose now that a man is obliged in Conscience either way by vertue of this Doubt is plainly to suppose that a man takes himself to be bound while yet at the same time he is disputing with himself whether he be bound or no. To speak this plainer if I can Since Conscience as I have often said is nothing else but a mans Judgment concerning Actions whether they be Duties or Sins or indifferent And since the Law of God Commanding or Forbidding Actions or neither Commanding or Forbidding them is the only Rule by which a man can judge what Actions are Duties and what are Sins and what are Indifferent It plainly follows that a man cannot be bound in Conscience to do any Action which it doth not appear to him that Gods Law hath some way or other Commanded and made a Duty or to Forbear any Action which he is not convinced in his Judgment that Gods Law hath some where or other Forbidden and so made a Sin And therefore since in a Case where a Man is purely Doubtful he cannot be supposed to have any such Convictions that the Law of God doth either Command or Forbid the Action Doubted of for if he had he would no longer Doubt It follows likewise by undeniable Consequence that a Mans Conscience
Form Others Doubt about the Lawfulness of our Ceremonies or our way of Administring the Sacrament And others it may be about other things None of them can indeed say that any of these things do go against their Conscience or that they believe the use of them to be unlawful For that is the Case of a Resolved Conscience with which we have nothing here to do But they are undetermined and uncertain whether they be Lawful or no and so long as they continue under this Suspence of Judgment they dare not joyn in our Worship fearing they would sin against God if they should Now of those that thus Doubt there may be two sorts There are some perhaps that have only a Single Doubt in this matter That is to say They make a Doubt whether they may Lawfully joyn with us so long as those suspected Conditions are required of them But they make no Doubt but are very well satisfied that they may Lawfully Separate from us Again there are others that Doubt on both sides as they have good Reason to do That is As they Doubt on one hand whether the Terms of our Communion be not sinful So they Doubt on the other hand whether it be not sinful to Separate upon account of those Terms Now of these likewise there may be two sorts Some perhaps are equally Doubtful whether the Terms of our Communion be lawful or no. Others Doubt unequally that is are more inclined to believe that they are Sinful than that they are Lawful That now which is to be enquired into is What is most Reasonable and Adviseable in Point of Conscience to be done in each of these Cases Now as to the first of these Cases where a man hath only a Doubt on one side and that is Whether he may Lawfully Communicate with us but he hath no Doubt that he may lawfully Separate To this I say two things First That the mans Doubting only on one side in this matter doth not make it more safe for him to Separate than if he had Doubted on both sides Because indeed if he must Doubt at all it is his Duty he is bound to Doubt on both sides and he is guilty of gross and criminal Ignorance of the Laws of God if he do not And if so then his Doubting only on one side doth not alter the Case but it must have the same Resolution as if it was a Double Doubt properly so called If it be said that it is a constant Rule of a Doubting Conscience and we have allowed it as such that in Cases where a man hath only a Doubt on one side of an Action it is more safe to chuse that side on which he hath no Doubt than that other concerning which he Doubts I do readily grant it But then it is to be remembred that that Rule is always intended and doth only obtain in such Cases where a man may certainly without danger of sinning forbear that Action of the Lawfulness of which he Doubts though he cannot without danger of sinning do the Action so long as he Doubts about it But now in our Case here it is evident to all men that are not wilfully blind that as there may be a danger of Sinning if a man should conform with a Doubting Conscience So there is certainly a danger of Sinning nay and we say a much greater danger if a man do not conform So that that Rule hath here no place at all The truth is Our Case if it be rightly put is this A man is here supposed to reason thus with himself I am very well satisfied in my own mind and I make no Doubt at all that I may Lawfully and without danger of Sin cut my self off from the Communion of the Church which yet by his Christianity he is bound to maintain and preserve as far as he can And I may likewise lawfully and without danger of sinning live in a constant Disobedience and Refractariness to all that Authority that God hath set over me to which yet by as plain Laws as any are in Nature or the Gospel he is bound to be subject I say I am satisfied in my own mind that I may lawfully do both these things But I am very unsatisfied and doubtful whether in my present Circumstances it is not my Duty thus to do so as that I shall Sin if I do not What now would any Prudent man say to this Case Why certainly he would say this That he who can Doubt after this fashion is either a very Ill man or a very Ignorant one And that such a man doth a great deal more stand in need of good Advice and wholsome Instructions about the plain Duties of Christianity than of Rules and Directions how to behave himself in Doubtful Cases Because indeed the best Rules of that kind are not to his Case so long as he continues thus Ignorant And if he should observe them yet that would not justifie his Acting if it should indeed prove contrary to the Law of God because it was both in his power and it was his Duty to know better A mans Right proceeding according to the Rules of a Doubting Conscience in a Case where he is entangled by a wilfully Eroneous one will no more discharge him from Sin as to his Soul if he do an evil Action than the Second Concoction though never so regular can rectifie the Errors of the First as to his Body But Secondly Though that which I have now offered be the proper Answer to the Case before us Yet there is this further to be said to it viz. Though we should suppose that the Law of God had not obliged us to keep the Unity of the Church or to obey our lawful Superiors but had left it as an indifferent matter and that there was no danger at all in forbearing these things but the only danger was in doing them So that the Doubt about Conformity should have perfectly the Nature of a Single Doubt as it is put in the Case I say now even upon this Supposition it will bear a just Dispute whether Conformity or Non-conformity be the more eligible side Nay I say further that if the Rule I laid down about a Single Doubt be true it will appear that as things now stand it is more reasonable for a man to Obey the Laws and Communicate with the Church so long as he hath only a bare Doubt about the Lawfulness of these things than to Disobey and Separate For thus I argue Though in a Single Doubt the Rule be That a man should chuse that side of an Action concerning which he hath no Doubt rather than that concerning which he Doubts Yet as was said before that Rule is always to be understood with this Proviso that all other Considerations in the Case be equal If it should happen that a very great Good may be compassed or a very great Evil may be avoided by Acting on the Doubtful side That very Consideration
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
will suggest enough to him Neither God nor Religion can be so much concerned in the one as in the other nor can the Souls of men or the peace of the World be so much endangered by private offences as by those against the publick Church Mens guilts are higher and more injurious to themselves and the effects are more dangerous and mischievous to others which is another good consideration to sway men in this case For a wise man will weigh the probable effects of what he doth and where an honest and uninstructed man is uncertain whether he may do or forbear such things and after his enquiry remains scrupulous and unresolved it is a good means to determine himself by to consider as well as he can what the effects and consequences of what he is going to do or forbear in all likelihood will be and that which he sees attended with a train of the worse and more mischievous consequences disargues it self and pronounceth its own condemnation And by these effects he may make as true a difference as if the plain essence and nature of the things were naked unto his view 3. Offending the Church of God is offending those to whom we owe more duty than we do unto any private party whatsoever I confess charity and respect and all the possible ininstances of it we owe to every private person with whom we converse and to whom we are any way related and God hath made all this matter of plain duty But it is a great deal more than this that we owe those that are over us in the Lord and his whole Church even as much more as we owe of deference and Duty of Obedience and Submission to a Father and a Governour and those that God and Nature hath set above us above that common Charity and Duty that we are to owe to one that is in all respects our equal The Laws of all Nations consider us under greater obligations to our Parents and to our Country than to any single persons whatsoever and make injuring of a Father or our Prince more heinous than doing the same to a common person upon the same level with us And I am sure the Laws of God and Religion too considering us as Members of the Church and calling the Governours of it our Fathers in Christ let us know what great duty we owe to them and of how much greater guilt it must needs be to offend them than our Fellow-christian or any Party in which we can be engaged There is a complication of sins and guilt in the one when there is but the breach of common charity in the other I deny not but men may joyn themselves to such a Party and make another man their Guide and commit themselves to the Conduct of him and thereby oblige themselves to more duty than they owe to others But this is duty of their own choice and the failure in it a sin of their own causing and doth no more supercede their original and primer obligations which God and Nature had layd on them than the being faithful to a company of Banditi will excuse disloyalty to our Prince and Country or than giving a gift to the Corban among the Jews would atone undutifulness to a wanting Parent However men may divide themselves from the Church of which Providence and Religion have made them Members and enter themselves into separate Factions yet they must remember that they owe duty to it still that no voluntary and second Compacts of their own can dissolve their primitive Obligations or their care to continue faithful to the one expiate their regardless offending of the other for they do owe more duty to the one than to the other what they pretend to owe to one is contracted by themselves but what they owe to the other is bound on them by the sacred and strong ties of Religion and Providence And this is another good Argument to determine a scrupulous person in this matter If he be in doubt which he had best to offend the Church of Christ or his own private Party and know not by what considerations to determine his resolution let him in Gods name consider to which he owes most what the Laws of God make his duty to the one more than to the other and then if he be honest and single-eyed he will soon be able to resolve his scruple and know what choice he ought to make 4. Offending the Church of God is truly a grievous Scandal and an Offence in the true Gospel-notion of it but the offending particular persons may possibly not be so That which I mean is this the Church of God we may be sure will not take offence but upon just reason but other men may call that an offence to them which really is not If we do that which grieves and injureth the whole Church then we do properly offend and are guilty of Scandal in the true notion of it But if we onely offend some private persons of our own party they may call that an offence which is not so For every grieving and offending of another in that sense of the word is not a formal Scandal as I hinted before and hath been since this made clear by a better Pen. And to apply this to our present matter in debate this is really so in our Case of Conformity the refusal of it and separating our selves from the Communion of the Church is truly that giving of offence which the Gospel condemns it is laying a snare in the way of men intrapping them into that damnable sin of Schism it is an obstructing the effect of Religion and a direct hinderance of that Concord and Love that Unanimity and Peace that it so strictly calls for among Christians and designes to render the World happy by But you may challenge any dissenting person to shew how angring some private persons and a single party of Schismaticks can be a Scandal to them or to name any one sin that it is temptation to them to commit and to instance that prejudice or disservice that it doth to Christian Religion It is possible I must confess that grief and anger at such a persons Conformity may irritate and provoke men to some things that are evil But then I say that this is the fault of them that are angry and not his with whom they are causelesly offended it may be taking an offence on their parts but not giving it by him For if we must call every thing an offence that any man doth pervert into an occasion of evil there will scarce any no not the best actions of men escape that denomination This methinks is a very material consideration and ought always to sway with men in this Case and if men could not determine themselves in it by other Reasons yet they might by this They should consider which is most likely to judge truest what is Scandal and what is not and when both sides say they are offended
properly Acts of Communion Having thus premised the explication of these terms what is meant by Church and what is meant by Church-Communion and what is meant by Fixt or Constant and occasional Communion the right understanding of these things will make it very easie to resolve those cases which Immediately respect Church-Communion and I shall Instance in these three 1. Whether Communion with some Church or other especially when the Church is divided into so many Sects and Parties be a necessary Duty incumbent on all Christians 2. Whether constant Communion with that Church with which occasional Communion is Lawful be a necessary Duty 3. Whether it be Lawful for the same person to Communicate with two separate Churches Case 1. Whether Communion with some Church Case 1 or other especially when the Church is divided into so many Sects and Parties be a necessary Duty incumbent on all Christians Now methinks the resolution of this is as plain as whether it be necessary for every Man to be a Christian For every Christian is Baptized into the Communion of the Church and must continue a Member of the Church till he renounce his Membership by Schism or Infidelity or be cast out of the Church by Ecclesiastical censures Baptism incorporates us into the Christian Church that is makes us Members of the Body of Christ which is his Church and is frequently so called in Scripture For there is but one Body and one Spirit Eph. Eph. 5. 23. 4. 12. 4. 4. one Christian Church which is animated and governed by the one Spirit of Christ And we are all Baptized into this one Body For as the Body is one and Col. 1. 18. hath many Members and all the members of that one Body being many are one Body so also is Christ that is the Christian Church which is the Body of Christ of which he is the Head for by one Spirit we are all Baptized 1 Cor. 12. 12 13. into one Body whether we be Jews or Gentiles whether we be bond or Free and are all made to drink into one Spirit for the body is not one member but many Now I have already proved that Church Communion is nothing else but Church-Membership to be in Communion with the Church and to be a member of the Church signifying the same thing And I think I need not prove that to be in a state of Communion contains both a right and an Obligation to Actual Communion He who is a member of the Church may Challenge all the Priviledges of a member among which Actual Communion is none of the least to be admitted to all the Acts and Offices of Christian-Communion to the Communion of Prayers and Sacraments and all other Christian Duties which no Man who is not a member of the Church has any right to And he who is a member is bound to perform all those Duties and Offices which are Essential to Church Communion and therefore is bound to Communicate with the Church in Religious Assemblies to joyn in Prayers and Sacraments to attend publick Instructions and to live like a member of the Church But to put this past all doubt that external and actual Communion is an essential Duty of a Church-member I shall offer these plain proofs of it 1. That Baptism makes us Members of the visible Church of Christ but there can be no visible Church without visible Communion and therefore every visible Member by vertue of his Membership is bound to external and visible Communion when it may be had 2. This is essential to the notion of a Church as it is a Body and Society of Christians For all Bodies and Societies of Men are Instituted for the sake of some common Duties and Offices to be performed by the Members of it A Body of Men is a Community and it is a strange kind of Community in which every Member may act by it self without any Communication with other Members of the same Body And yet such a kind of Body as this the Christian Church is if it be not an essential Duty of every Member to live in the exercise of visible Communion with the Church when he can For there is the same Law for all Members and either all or none are bound to actual Communion But this is more absurd still when we consider that the Church is such a Body as consists of variety of Members of different Offices and Officers which are of no use without actual and visible Communion of all its Members To what purpose did Christ appoint such variety of Ministers in his Church Apostles Prophets Evangelists Eph. 4. 11 12. Pastors and Teachers for the perfecting of the Saints for the work of the Ministry for the edifying of the Body of Christ to what purpose has he instituted a standing Ministry in his Church to offer up the Prayers of the Faithful to God to instruct exhort reprove and adminster the Christian Sacraments if private Christians are not bound to maintain Communion with them in all Religious Offices 3. Nay the Nature of Christian Worship obliges us to Church-Communion I suppose no Man will deny but that every Christian is bound to Worship God according to our Saviours Institution and what that is we cannot learn better than from the Example of the Primitive Christians of whom St. Luke gives us this account that they continued Stedfast in the Acts 2. 41. Apostles Doctrine and Worship and in breaking of Bread and in Prayers That which makes any thing in a Strict sense an Act of Church-Communion is that it is performed in the Fellowship of the Apostles or in Communion with the Bishops and Ministers of the Church They are appointed to Offer up the Prayers of Christians to God in his Name and therefore tho the private devotions of Christians are acceptable to God as the Prayers of Church-Members yet none but publick Prayers which are Offered up by Men who have their Authority from Christ to Offer these Spiritual Sacrifices to God are properly the Prayers of the Church and Acts of Church-Communion If then we must Offer up our Prayers to God according to Christ's Institution that is by the hands of persons Authorized and set apart for that purpose we must of necessity joyn in the Actual and Visible Communion of the Church The Sacrament of the Lords Supper is the principal part of Christian Worship and we cannot Celebrate this Feast but in Church-Communion for this is a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a common Supper or Communion-Feast which in all Ages of the Church has been administred by Consecrated Persons and in Church-Communion for it loses its Nature and Signification when it is turned into a private Mass so that if every Christian is bound to the Actual performance of true Christian Worship he is bound to an Actual Communion with the Christian Church 4. We may observe further that Church Authority is exercised only about Church-Communion which necessarily supposes that all Christians who
are Church-Members and in a State of Communion are bound to all the Acts of external and visible Communion with the Church The exercise of Church Authority consists in Receiving in or Shutting out of the Church To receive into the Church is to admit them to all external Acts of Communion to Shut or Cast out of the Church is to deny them the external and visible Communion of the Church not to allow them to Pray or receive the Lords Supper or perform any Religious Offices in the publick Assemblies of the Church Now all this Church Authority would signifie nothing were not External and Actual Communion both the Priviledge and Duty of every Christian and yet this is all the Authority Christ hath given to His Church 5. And to confirm all this nothing is more plain in Scripture than that Separation from a Church is to withdraw from the visible Communion of it and there can be no Notion of Separation without this now if Separation from Religious Assemblies be to break Communion then to live in Communion with the Church requires our Actual Communicating with the Church in all Religious Duties And that this is the true Notion of Separation is easily proved from the most express testimonies 2 Cor. 6. 17. Wherefore come out from among them and be ye separate saith the Lord and touch no unclean thing and I will receive you Where come out from among them and be ye separate plainly signifies to forsake the Assemblies of Idolaters not to Communicate with them in their Idolatrous Worship So that not to joyn with any Men or Church in their Idolatrous Worship is to Separate from their Communion which is a very Godly Separation when the Worship is Idolatrous and Sinful but a Schismatical Separation when it is not Thus St. John tells us of the Ancient Hereticks They went out from us because they were not of us for if 1 John 2. 19. they had been of us they would no doubt have continued with us but they went out that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us Where their going out from them plainly signifies their forsaking Christian Assemblies upon which account the Author of the Epistle to the Hebrews admonishes the Christians not to forsake the Assembling of themselves together as the manner of some is in which he Heb. 10. 25. refers to the Separation of those Ancient Hereticks And thus accordingly to have Fellowship or Communion with any is to partake with them in their Religious Mysteries By this Argument St. Paul disswades the Corinthians for Eating of the Idols Feast because they were Sacrifices to Evil Spirits and by partaking of those Sacrifices they had Communion with them But I say that the things which the 1 Cor. 10. 20 21. Gentiles Sacrifice they Sacrifice to Devils and not to God and I would not that you should have Fellowship with Devils Ye cannot Drink the Cup of the Lord and the Cup of Devils ye cannot be partakers of the Lords Table and of the Table of Devils So that tho we must first be in a state of Communion with Christ and his Church must first be received into Covenant and by Baptism be incorporated into the Christian Church before we have any right to Communicate with this Church yet no Man can preserve his Church-state without Actual Communion no Man has Communion with Christ or his Church but he who Actually Communicates in all Religious Offices and Christian Institutions a state of Communion confers a right to Communicate but Actual Communion consists in the exercise of Communion and a right to Communicate without Actual Communion is worth nothing as no right or priviledge is without the Exercise of it for enjoyment consists in Acts and all the Blessings of the Gospel all the Blessings of Christian Communion are conveyed to us by Actual Communion So that if we would partake of the Blessings of Christ if we would Reap the advantages of Church-Communion we must live in Actual Communion and not content our selves with a dormant and useless right which we never bring into Act. This is sufficient to prove the necessity of Actual Communion with the Christian Church when it may be had for where it cannot be had Non-Communion is no Sin for we are not obliged to Impossibilities he who lives in a Country or travels through any Country where there is no true Christian Church to Communicate with cannot enjoy Actual Communion the right and Duty of Communion continues tho necessity may suspend the Act. But the greater difficulty is whether it be not Lawful to suspend our Communion with any particular Churches when we see the Church divided into a great many Parties and Factions which refuse Communion with each other which is the deplorable state of the Church at this day among us Presbyterians Independents Anabaptists Quakers all Separate from the Church of England and from each other and from hence some conclude it Lawful to suspend Communion with all the divided Parties which is just such a reason for a Total suspension of Church-Communion as the different and contrary opinions in Religion are for Scepticism and infidelity Because there are a great many kinds of Religions in the World and a great many divided Sects of the Christian Religion therefore some Men will be of no Religion and because the Christian Church is divided into a great many opposite and Separate Communions therefore others will be of no Church and the reason is as strong in one case as it is in the other that is indeed it holds in neither For it is possible to discover which is the true Religion notwithstanding all these different and contrary perswasions about it and it is equally possible to find out which of these divided Communions is a true and Sound Member of the Catholick Church and when we know that we are bound to maintain Communion with it Indeed if such Divisions and Separations excuse us from Actual Communion with the Church Actual Communion never was and is never likely to be a Duty long together for there never was any state of the Church so happy long together as to be without divisions even in the Apostles times there were those who Separated from the Communion of the Apostles and set up private Conventicles of their own and so it has been in all succeeding Ages of the Church and so it is likely to continue and if we are not bound to Communicate with the Church while there are any Hereticks or Schismaticks who divide from the Church farewell to all Church Communion in this World Should any Man indeed Travel into a Strange Country and there find a Schism in the Christian Church it were very fitting for him to Suspend Communion with either Party till he had opportunity to acquaint himself with the state of the Controversie so as to judge which party is the Schismatick and then he is bound if he understand their Language to Communicate
out of England without interrupting our Communion with the Church of England for the Communion is one and the same in all Christian Churches which are in Communion with each other though they may observe different Rites and Modes of Worship And this I suppose is a Sufficient answer to that other untoward consequence that if the Members of the Church of England may occasionally Communicate with the French Church then Constant Communion is not always a Duty where occasional Communion is lawful I suppose because we are not bound to a constant actual or presential Communion with the French Church though we may occasionally Communicate with it But certainly Sir Had you ever considered what I discourst about constant and occasional Communion you would not have made such an Objection as this For this is a Modern distinction which has no sence at the bottom as I plainly shewed But however by constant Communion our Dissenters understand the performing the Acts of Communion always or ordinarily in the same Church and by occasional Communion performing the Acts of Communion sometimes or as occasion serves in another Church now with respect to this Notion of constant or occasional Communion as it signifies the constant and ordinary or the Occasional Acts of Communion must that question be understood whether Constant Communion he a Duty where Occasional Communion is Lawful the meaning of which question is this whether when other reasons and circumstances determine my Personal Communion Ordinarily to one Church it be not my Duty to Communicate ordinarily with that Church if I can lawfully Communicate sometimes with it and there being no other reason to justifie non-Communion with any Church with which I am bound for other reasons Ordinarily to Communicate but onely Sinful Terms of Communion and there being no Colour for such a Pretence where occasional Communion is acknowledged Lawful for Sinful Terms of Communion make occasional as well as constant Acts of Communion Sinful I hence conclude that it is a necessary Duty to Communicate constantly or ordinarily with that Church in which I live if it be Lawful to Communicate occasionally or sometimes with it But if any Man will be so perverse as to understand this Question as you now do not of the Communion of a Church which for other reasons we are bound to Communicate Ordinarily with but of any Church with which I may Lawfully Communicate as occasion serves it makes it an absurd and senseless Proposition to say that constant Communion by that meaning presential and personal Communion is always a Duty where occasional Communion is lawful For at this rate if occasional Communion with the Protestant Churches of France Geneva Holland Germany be Lawful it becomes a necessary Duty for me to Communicate always personally and presentionally with all these Churches at the same time which no man can do who can be present but in one place at a time But yet thus far the Proposition holds universally true that whatever Church I can occasionally Communicate with without Sin I am also bound to Communicate constantly with whenever such reasons as are necessarie to determine my Communion to a particular Church make it my Dutie to do so And no man in his Wits ever understood this Question in any other sense But this you think cannot be my meaning For accorcording to me no Man is obliged to be a Member of one Sound Church more than another provided the distance is not so great but that he may Communicate with both It is wonderful to me Sir how you should come to fasten so many absurd Propositions upon me and I would desire of you for the future if you have no regard to your own Reputation yet upon Principles of Common Honesty not to write so hastily but to take some time to understand a Book before you undertake to confute it Where do I say that no man is Obliged to be a Member of one Sound Church more than of another I assert indeed that no Baptized Christian is a Member of any particular Church considered meerly as particular but is a Member of the universal Church and of all sound Orthodox Churches as parts of the Universal Church This puts him into a State of Communion with the whole Church without which he cannot be properly said to perform any Act of Church-Communion though he should join in all the Acts and Offices of Christian worship But is there no difference between being a Member of the Universal Church and of all particular Churches which are Parts and Members of the Universal Church and not to be Obliged to be a Member of one Sound Church more than of another The first supposes that every Christian whatever particular Church he actually Communicates in is a Member of the whole Christian Church and of all particular Sound Churches the second supposes the quite contrary that Christians are so Members of one Church as they are not of another that constant Communion in a particular Church confines their Church-Membership to that particular Church in which they Communicate So that the question is not what Church I must be a Member of for every Christian is a Member of the whole Church not meerly of this or that particular Church but what particular Church I must Communicate in now our Obligation to Communicate in a certain particular Church results from the place wherein we live The Church in which we were Born and Baptized and have our Ordinary abode and Residence the Church which is incorporated into the State of which we are Natural Subjects if it be a true and sound Christian Church Challenges our Communion and Obedience Now in the same place there never can be any Competition between two Churches because there must be but one Church in the same place and therefore there can be no dispute in what Church we must constantly Communicate which must be the Church in which we live But is there not a French and a Dutch as well as an English Church in London and since distance of place does not hinder may we not choose which of these we will ordinarily Communicate with I answer no we have onely the Church of England in England The French Church is in France and the Dutch Church is in Holland though there is a French and Dutch Congregation allowed in London These Congregations belong to their own Original Churches and are under their Government and Censures but there is no Church-Power and Authority in England but only of the Church of England and therefore though we may occasionally Communicate with the French Congregation our Obligation to constant Communion is with the Church of England which alone has Authority and Jurisdiction in England to require our Communion and Obedience one particular Church is distinguisht from another not by a distinct and separate Communion which is Schismatical but by distinct Power and Jurisdiction and that Church within whose Jurisdiction we live can onely Challenge our Communion and I suppose
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
Service were many yet they were sufficiently describ'd in their Law and it was but consulting that or Those whose Office and Employment it was to be well versed in it and they might be presently inform'd and as soon see it as the Book was laid open This they all agreed in But it is not so under the Gospel and there is no greater proof of it than the several schemes drawn up for Discipline and Order by those that have been of that Opinion and made some attemps to discribe them And then when things are thus dark and obscure so hard to trace and discover that it has thus perplexed and baffled those that have made it their business to bring these things within Scripture Rules how perplexed must they be that are not skilled in it And as I have above shewed must all their Days live in the Communion it 's likely of no Church since though a Church should have nothing in it but what is prescribed yet it would take up a great deal of time to examine and more to be satisfied that all in it is prescribed 3. I shall consider How we may know what things are Indifferent in the Worship of God I may answer to this that we may know what is Indifferent in the Worship of God by the same Rule that we may know what is Indifferent out of Worship that is if the thing to be enquired after be neither required nor Forbidden For the Nature of Indifferency is always the same and what it is in one kind or instance it is in all and if the want of a Law to Require or Forbid doth make a thing Indifferent in Nature or Civil matters it doth also the same in Religious And in things Forbidden by Humane Authority the not being required in Scripture and in things required by Humane Authority the not being Forbidden in Scripture is a Rule we may safely determine the case and judg of the Lawfulness and Indifferency of things in Divine Worship by But I confess the Question requires a more parcicular Answer because things in their Nature Lawful and Indifferent may yet in their use and application become unlawful As it is in Civil cases and Secular matters to be Covered or Uncovered is a thing in it self Indifferent but to be Covered in the presence of such of our Betters as Custom and Law have made it our Duty to stand bare before would be unlawful and it would be no excuse for such an Omission and Contempt that the thing is in it self Indifferent And then much more will this hold where the case is of an higher Nature as it is in the Worship of God where things in themselves Indifferent may become Ridiculous Absurd and Profane and argue rather contempt of God than reverence for him in the Persons using them Again the things may though Grave and Pertinent yet be so numerous that they may obscure and oppress the Service and confound and distract the Mind that should attend to the Observation of them and so for one reason or another are not to be allowed in the Solemnities of Religion Therefore in Answer to the Question I shall add 1. That things Indifferent are so called from their general Nature and not as if in practice and use and all manner of cases they always were so and never unlawful for that they may be by Accident and Circumstance being lawful or unlawful expedient or inexpedient as they are used and applied 2. I observe that there are several Laws which things Indifferent do respect and that may be Required or Forbidden by one Law which is not Forbidden or Required by another and that may be Indifferent in one State which is Unlawful in another and by passing out of one into the other may cease to be Indifferent and therefore when we say things are Indifferent we must understand of what Rank they are and what Law they do respect As for example Humane Conversation and Religious Worship are different Ranks to which things are referred and therefore what may be Indifferent in Conversation may be unlawful in Worship Thus to Enterchange Discourse about Common Affairs is a thing lawful in it self and useful in its place but when practised in the Church and in the midst of Religious Solemnities is Criminal This distinction of Ranks and States of things is useful and necessary to be observed and which if observed would have prevented the objection made by some that if a Church or Authority may Command Indifferent things then they may require us to Pray Standing upon the head c. for that though Indifferent in another case is not in that as being unsutable to it 3. Therefore we must come to some Rules in Divine Worship by which we may know what things in their Nature Indifferent are therein also Indifferent and may be lawfully used It being not enough to plead they are Indifferent in themselves as some unwarily do and therefore presently they may be used For by the same reason a Person may Spit in anothers Face may keep on his Hat before the King c. the Spitting and being Covered being in their Nature Indifferent But now as there are certain Rules which we are to respect in Common and Civil Conversation and which even in that case do tye us up in the use of things otherwise Indifferent So it is as reasonable and must be much more allowed that there are some Rules of the like Nature which we must have a regard to in the Administration of Divine Worship And as in Common matters the Nature of the thing in Actions the end in Conversation the circumstances are to be heeded viz. Time Place Persons as when where before whom we are Covered or Uncovered c. So in Sacred matters the Nature of the thing in the Decency and Solemnity of the Worship the end for which it was appointed in the Edification of the Church and the Peace Glory Security of that in its Order are to be respected And according to these Rules and the circumstances of things are we to judg of the Indifferency Lawfulness or expediency of things used in the Service of God and as they do make for or against and do approach to or recede from these Characters so they are to be rejected or observed and the more or less esteemed But yet we are not come to a conclusion for 1. These are general Rules and so the particulars are nor so easily pointed to 2. Decency and Edification and Order are as was observed before Variable and Uncertain and depend upon Circumstances and so in their Nature not easily determined And 3. Persons have very different Opinions about what is Decent Edifying and Orderly as in the Apostles time in the Church of Rome some were for and others against the Observation of Days and in the Church of Corinth some doubtless were for being Covered others for being Uncovered in Divine Worship And therefore there is somewhat further requisite to give Satisfaction
the Ecclesiastical Laws A Humane Law grounded upon a Divine or to speak more properly a Divine Law modify'd or Clothed with several Circumstances of Mans Appointment doth Create another kind of Obligation upon every Subject than a Law that is purely Humane that is to say a Law the matter of which is neither Good nor Evil in it self but perfectly indifferent In the former Case we must yield Obedience to the Law as to the Law of God however it comes Clothed with Circumstances of Mans Appointment In the other Case we only yield Obedience as to the Command of Man and for no other reason than that God in general hath Obliged us to Obey our Superiors To make this a little plainer let us for Instance take the business of Paying Tribute and Custom in this Nation in which Case there is a Complication of a Divine Law with a Humane as it is in the Case we are now upon That every Subject should Pay Tribute to whom Tribute is due Custom to whom Custom is due is a Law of God as being a branch both of Natural and Christian Justice But out of what goods we should Pay Tribute or Custom or what Proportion of those Goods should be Paid this is not defined either by the Law of Nature or the Law of the Gospel but is left to the Determination of the Municipal Laws of every Kingdom But now because Humane Authority doth interpose in this Affair and settles what every Man is to Pay to the King and out of what Commodities doth it therefore follow that if a Man can by Fraud or Concealment detain the Kings Right from him that he incurs no other guilt for this but only the Transgressing of an Act of Parliament and the being Obnoxious to the Penalties in Case he be detected No certainly for all that the Customs in that manner and form be settled upon the King by Humane Law only yet the matter of that Law being a point of Natural Justice between Man and Man the Man that is thus Guilty ought to look upon himself as an Offender against the Divine Law as an unjust Person before God And his willingness to Submit to the Forfeiture of his Goods will not render him less unjust or more excuseable The Case is much the same as to the matter we have now before us It is not a meer Humane Law or Act of Parliament that Obligeth us to keep the Unity of the Church to bring our Châ—ldren to be made Christians by Baptisme to meet together at Solemn times for the Profession of our Faith for the Worshipping God for the Commemorating the Death of our Saviour in the Sacrament of his Supper All this is tyed upon us by the Laws of Christ These things are as much required of us by God as Christians as it is required that we should Pay the King and every Man what is due to them if we would not be dishonest unjust It is true that the particular Forms and Modes and Circumstances of doing these things are not Commanded nor Prescribed by the Laws of Christ in this Instance of Church Communion no more than they are prescribed by the Laws of God in the other Instance I gave But they are left intirely to the Prudence and Discretion of the Governours that God hath set over us in Ecclesiastical matters just as they are in the other But in the mean time these things thus Clothed by Humane Authority as to their Circumstances Yet being for the Matter of them bound upon us by Christ himself we can no more deny our Obedience to the Publick Laws about them than we can in the other Instance I have named And that Man may as well for Instance purge himself from the Imputation of Knavery before God that will contrive a way of his own for the Paying his just Debts contrary to what the Law of the Land hath declared to be Just and Honest As any Man can acquit himself from the Sin of Schism before God that will chuse a way of his own for the Publick Worship different from and in Opposition to what the Laws of the Church have prescribed always supposing that the Worship Established be Commanded by just Authority and there be nothing required in it as a Condition of Communion that is against the Laws of Jesus Christ The Sum of all this is that it is every Mans Duty by the Laws of Christ as well as the Laws of Man to Worship God in the way of the Church so long as there is nothing required in that Worship that can justly offend the Conscience of a Wise and Good Christian And therefore there is more in departing from the Communion of the Church when we can Lawfully hold it than meerly the Violation of a Statute or a Humane Law for we cannot do it without breaking the Law of God Nay so much is it against the Law of God to do this that I think no Authority upon Earth can warrant it So that even if there was a Law made which should Ordain that wilful causless Separation from the Established Church should be allowed and tolerated and no Man should be called to an Account for it Yet nevertheless such a Separation would still be a Schism would still be a Sin against God for no Humane Law can make that Lawful which Gods Law hath forbid There now only remains our last general Head about Conscience to be spoken to and then we have done with our Preliminary Points And that is concerning the Authority of Conscience or how far a Man is Obliged to follow or be guided by his Conscience in his Actions When we speak of the Obligation of Conscience or of being bound in Conscience to do or not to do an Action it sufficiently appears from what hath been said that we can mean no more by these Phrases than this that we are convinced in our Judgment that it is our Duty to do this or the other Action because we believe that God hath Commanded it Or we are perswaded in our Judgment that we ought to forbear this or the other Action because we believe that God hath forbidden it This now being that which we mean by the Obligation of Conscience here we come to inquire how far this Perswasion or Judgment of ours concerning what is our Duty and what is Sinful hath Authority over us how far it doth Oblige us to Act or not Act according to it Now in Order to the resolving of this we must take Notice that our Judgment concernâ—ng what God hath Commanded or Forbidden or left Indifferent is either true or false We either make a right Judgment of our Duty or we make a wrong one In the former Case we call our Judgment a Right Conscience in the latter we call it an Erroneous Conscience As for those Cases where we doubt and hesitate and know not well how to make any Judgment at all which is that we call a Doubting Conscience but indeed
not 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
forbidden it So that in all doubtful Cases where a man apprehends no danger of transgressing Gods Law whether he doth the Action he doubts about or doth it not there his Conscience is not properly concerned And this is so true that though we should suppose one side of the Action in question to be really all things considered more expedient and more eligible than the other yet so long as we are satisfied that we may without breach of Gods Law chuse either side we are not concern'd in Conscience to chuse that side which is the most expedient or the most eligible For the truth of this besides the reason of the thing we have the authority of St. Paul who when this Case was proposed to him Whether it was better for the Christians in those times to marry or not to marry he thus resolves it That though indeed as things then stood it was better not to marry yet they might do what they would for if they did marry they sinned not and though as he saith he that gave not his Virgin in marriage did better than he that gave her in marriage yet he allowes that he that gave her in marriage did well and consequently did act with a good Conscience Vid. 1 Cor. 7. 3. From what hath been said we may be able to give a clear account of the Nature of a Doubting Conscience and to distinguish it from the other sorts of Conscience particularly that which they call the Scrupulous which is our Third Point under this Head Conscience is usually though how properly I will not now dispute distributed into these three Kinds the Resolved the Scrupulous and the Doubting When we speak of a Resolved Conscience every body knows that we mean no more by that Phrase than this that a man is satisfied and resolved in his own Mind concerning the action he hath been deliberating upon viz. that he is bound to do it as being a Duty or that he is bound to forbear it as being a Sin or that he may either do it or forbear it as being an Indifferent action neither commanded nor forbidden by God Now this Perswasion if it be according to the Rule of the Divine Law we call it a Right Conscience If it be contrary to that Rule we call it an Erroneous Conscience But of this we need speak no more here since it was the whole argument of the former Discouse As for the Scrupulous Conscience as that is made a distinct sort of Conscience from the Resolved and the Doubting we may thus define it It is a Conscience in some measure resolved but yet accompanied with a Fear of acting according to that Resolution It is the unhappiness of a great many that when they are pretty well satisfied in their Judgment concerning this or the other Point which they made a Matter of Conscience and have nothing considerable to Object against the Evidence that is given them but on the contrary are convinced that they ought or that they may lawfully Act thus or thus Yet for all that when they come to act they are very uneasie and make a World of Difficulties Not that there is any new Reason appears that can pretend to unsettle much less overthrow the Grounds of their first Determination But only their unaccountable Fears must pass for Reasons This now is to have a Scrupulous Conscience in the proper Sense But a Doubting Conscience which is that we are now concerned in though in Common Speech it be often confounded with the Scrupulous is quite different from both these sorts of Conscience For in both those a man is supposed to have passed a Judgment in his own Mind whether the Action before him be according to Gods Law or against it But in the Case of a Doubting Conscience it appears from what I have said that a man hath not nor cannot so long as he doubts make any Judgment at all but is uncertain as to both sides having as he thinks as many Arguments to incline him one way as the other and when once he comes to have so much Evidence as to create a Perswasion or Opinion on one side then he ceaseth to have a Doubting Conscience So that the True Definition of a Doubting Conscience as it is commonly called is this The Suspence of a mans Judgment in a Question about the Duty or the Sin of an Action occasioned by the Equal or near Equal Probalities on both sides And likewise the true Difference between a Doubting a Resolved and a Scrupulous Conscience is this That the Resolved Conscience is satisfied about its Point and acts confidently at least chearfully The Scrupulous Conscience is likewise satisfied in the general but either dares not act or acts fearfully The Doubting Conscience is not satisfied at all for the Point before it is still a Question of which it can make no Judgment no Resolution because of the equal appearances of Reason on both sides This is a plain account of the Doubting Conscience But after all it must be acknowledged that this which we call a Doubting Conscience and which we have been all this while discoursing of is truly and strictly speaking so far from being any particular sort or kind of Conscience as we have hitherto supposed it that it is no Conscience at all Conscience as we have often said is a Mans Mind making a Judgment about the Morality of his Actions But that which we are now talking of is a mans Mind making no Judgment as to that Point but continuing wavering and undetermined Now how a mans Judgment and his no Judgment which are the Contradictories to one another should agree in the same Common Nature of Conscience is not easie to be understood The Truth is by the same Logick or propriety of Speech that we say a Doubting Conscience we may also if we please say an unresolved Resolution or a Perswasion without an Assent But however because Use hath given the Name of Conscience to the Doubting Mind and because Conscience is sometimes really concerned about Acting in Doubtful Cases I chuse to follow the common way of speaking II. I now proceed to our Second general Head which is concerning the Rule of a Doubting Conscience In speaking to this I shall do these two things viz. I shall shew First What kind of Rule we here speak of that is which Conscience needs in a Doubtful Case Secondly What that Rule is or wherein it doth consist 1. As to the first of these When we speak of the Rule of a Doubting Conscience we do not mean such a Rule by which a man shall be enabled to resolve all his Doubts concerning every Point so as that he shall cease to doubt any longer concerning that Point But we mean only such a Rule by which a man may be directed how to determine himself in every Doubtful Case so as to act with a safe Conscience whether he can get rid of his Doubts or not There is just as much difference
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
or leave out of it till all Parties amongst us are satisfied which indeed can never be effected as it doth consist in our becoming more truly Christian in our Lives and Tempers They are our vicious Dispositions more than our different Apprehensions that keep us at such a distance Let the terms of Communion with the Church be what they will yet as long as Men retain the same quarrelsom Mind and industriously seek for Doubts and Scruples and are glad to find them and prefer their own private Opinion and Judgment before the Wisdom and Authority of all their Governours whether Civil or Ecclesiastical it is plain our Divisions and Animosities will not cannot cease But this leads me to the last thing I design'd to discourse of which was to propound to you the best ways and means by which men may get rid of and ease their Minds of such Scruples where I shall especially consider those that relate to our communicating with our Parish-Churches You must not expect that I should descend to and answer the particular Exceptions which hinder men from constant Communion with us but only in general I shall crave leave to advise some few things which would mightily tend to the removing those Doubts and Scruples that yet detain so many in a state of utter Separation from us or at least discourage their total and hearty joyning with us Which charitable Design and Attempt however unsuccessful I may be in it yet cannot I hope be unacceptable to any whose Consciences are pester'd with such Scruples since I endeavour only to deliver them from those Mistakes which beside the disservice they do to Religion and the Protestant Interest do also expose them to trouble and danger from the Publick Laws and Civil Magistrate Of many Rules that might be given in this case I shall insist only on these following 1. We should take great care to beget and cherish in our Minds the most high and worthy and honourable Thoughts of God Almighty This is the Foundation of all Religion and as our Apprehensions of God are such for the most part will be his Worship and Service Accordingly as we conceive of his Nature so shall we judge what things are most pleasing to him as also what they are that are most offensive and distastful to him Now consider I beseech you Can that Man have becoming and excellent Thoughts of the Divine Nature who imagines that God regards any particular Gestures Habits and Postures so far as that the acceptance of our Service and Worship should depend upon such Circumstances of our Religious Actions When with all Humility and true devotion of Heart a sincere Christian prostrates himself at the Throne of God's Grace and with earnest Desire and Affections begs those good things that are according to Gods Mind and Will can we believe that the Father of our Spirits shall refuse and reject his Petition because it is delivered in a certain prescribed form of Words Shall his importunate renewed Requests fail of Success because he still useth the same Expressions and reads his Prayers out of a Book Is God pleased with variety of Words or the copiousness of our Invention or the elegancy of our Phrase and Stile Is it not the Heart and inward frame of Spirit that God principally respects in all our Prayers Or can we think so meanly of God that he should shut his ears against the united Prayers of his People because offended at the colour of the Garment in which the Minister officiates Suppose two Persons both with equal Preparation with true Repentance and Faith to approach the Lord's Table one of them out of a deep sense of his Unworthiness to receive so great Blessings and out of a grateful acknowledgment of the Benefits therein conferr'd upon him takes the Sacrament upon his Knees in the humblest Posture the other sitting or standing can you think that the Sacrament is effectual or beneficial or that God blesses it only to him that sits or that it would not have been of the same advantage to him if he also had received it kneeling To surmise any such thing is surely to dishonour God as if he were a low poor humoursome Being like a Father that should disinherit his Child tho in all Respects most dutiful to him and every way deserving his greatest Kindness only because he did not like his Complexion or the colour of his Hair The wiser and greater any Person is to whom we address our selves the less he will stand upon little Punctilio's Under the Jewish Law the minutest circumstances of Worship were exactly described and determined by God himself and it was not ordinarily lawful for the Priests at all to vary from them But it was necessary then that it should be thus because the Jewish Worship was typical of what was to come hereafter and those many nice Observances that were appointed were not commanded for themselves as if there were any Excellency in them but they were shadows of things to come which are all now done away by the Gospel and the bringing in of everlasting Righteousness the only thing always pleasing to God and agreeable to his Nature It is a spiritual rational Service God now expects from us and delights in and he must look upon God as a very fond and captious Being who can perswade himself that our Prayers and Thanksgivings and other Acts of Worship tho we be most hearty and devout in them yet shall be rejected by him only because of some particular Habits or Gestures we used which were neither dishonourable to God nor unsutable to the nature of those religious Performances Such mean Thoughts of God are the true ground of all Superstition when we think to court and please him by making great Conscience about little things and so it hath been truly observed that there is far more Superstition in conscientious abstaining from that which God hath no where forbid than there is in doing that which God hath not commanded A man may certainly do what God hath not commanded and yet never think to flatter God by it nor place any Religion in it but he may do it only out of obedience to his Superiours for outward Order and Decency for which end our Ceremonies are appointed and so there is no Superstition in them But now a Man cannot out of Conscience refuse to do what God hath not forbid and is by lawful Authority required of him but he must think to please God by such abstaining and in this conceit of pleasing or humouring God by indifferent things consists the true Spirit of Superstition 2. Lay out your great care and zeal about the necessary and substantial duties of Religion and this will make you less concerned about things of an inferiour and indifferent nature As on the one hand our fierce Disputes and Debates about little things and circumstances are apt to eat out the Heart and Life of Religion so on the other side minding those things most in
doth not like or approve of it he hath some little Reasons and Exceptions against it it is not the best and fittest all things considered This is properly a Scruple and is certainly the case of all those who do sometimes to save themselves from the severity of the Laws joyn in our Worship and communicate with us which we presume they would never do did they judge it absolutely sinful and forbidden by God So that though it should be granted that a man cannot innocently do that of which his Conscience doubts whether it be lawful or not yet a Man may and in some cases is bound to do that which is not unlawful though upon some other Accounts he scruples the doing of it 2. If the Question be about things wherein we are left wholly to our selves and at Liberty having no very weighty Reason for the doing of them then it may be the safest way to forbear all such things we scruple at Of such cases the Apostle speaks in the fore-mentioned Places of eating or not eating some Meats neither of them was required by any Law Eating was no instance of Duty nor was it any ways forbid Christians where to do or not to do is perfectly at our own choice it is best for a Man to forbear doing that of which he hath some suspicion tho he be not sure that it is sinful As suppose a man have Scruples in his Mind about playing at Cards and Dice or going to see Stage-Plays or putting out his Money to Usury because there is no great Reason or Necessity for any of these things and to be sure they may be innocently forborn without any Detriment to our selves or others though we do not judge them absolutely sinful yet it is safest for him who cannot satisfie himself concerning the Goodness and Fitness of them wholly to deny himself the use of them But in these two cases it is most for the quiet of our Consciences to act against or notwithstanding our Fears and Scruples when either our Superiours to whom we owe Obedience have interposed their Commands or when by it we prevent some great Evil or Mischief 1. When our Superiours either Civil or Ecclesiastical whom by the Will of God we are bound to obey in all lawful things have interposed their Commands our Scruples will not excuse or justifie our Disobedience If indeed we judge what is commanded to be absolutely unlawful tho it be a false erroneous Judgment yet whilst we are under such persuasion we are by no means to do it upon any Inducement whatever If I only doubt of the lawfulness of any particular Action and it be an instance wherein I am at liberty I am still bound not to do it For Whatsoever is not of Faith is Sin I am certainly innocent when I forbear I may commit a Sin If I do it Wisdom would therefore that the safer part be chosen But now if I am by the command of my Superiours obliged to it my choice is then determined it then becomes my Duty and it can never be safe or advisable to neglect a plain Duty for an uncertain Offence Thus most and best Casuists do determine about a doubtful Conscience particularly the forenamed reverend Bishop in the same Sermon Whatsoever is commanded us by those whom God hath set over us either in Church Commonwealth or Family quod tamen not sit certum displicere Deo saith St. Bernard which is not evidently contrary to the Law and Will of God ought to be of us received and obeyed no otherwise than as if God himself had commanded it because God himself hath commanded us to obey the Higher Powers and to submit our selves to their Ordinances But now this is more plain concerning Fears and Scruples only about the conveniency and expediency of things these ought all to be despised when they come in Competition with the Duty of Obedience Would men but think themselves in Conscience bound to pay the same Duty and respect to the Judgment and Authority of Magistrates and Governours whether in Church or State as they do expect their Servants and Children should to themselves they would soon see the reasonableness of such submission For all Government and Subjection would be very precarious and arbitrary if every one that did not approve of a Law or was not fully satisfied about the reasonableness of it was thereby exempted from all Obligations to obey it This is to give the Supreme Authority to the most humoursome or perverse sort of Christians for according to this principle no publick Laws and Constitutions can be valid and binding unless every scrupulous tho a very ignorant Conscience consent to them 2. We are not to mind or stand upon our Scruples when they probably occasion a great evil a general mischief They are not fit to be put in the balance with the Peace of the Church and Unity of Christians Suppose for once that our publick way of Worship is not the best that can be devised that many things might be amended in our Liturgy that we could invent a more agreeable Establishment than this present is which yet no man in the World can ever tell for we cannot know all the inconveniences of any Alteration till it comes to be tryed yet granting all this it cannot be thought so intolerable an Evil as contempt of God's Solemn Worship dividing into Sects and Parties living in Debate Contention and Separation from one another If there be some Rites and Customs amongst us not wisely chosen or determined some Ceremonies against which just Exceptions may be made yet to forsake the Communion of such a true Church of Jesus Christ and set up a distinct Altar in opposition to it to combine and associate into separate Congregations is as it is somewhere expressed like knocking a man on the head because his Teeth are rotten or his Nails too long How much more agreeable is it to the Christian Temper to be willing to sacrifice all such Doubts and Scruples to the Interests of publick Order and divine Charity for better surely it is to serve God in a defective imperfect manner to bear with many Disorders and Faults than to break the Bond of Peace and brotherly Communion For this we have the Example of our Blessed Lord and Saviour who lived and died in Communion with a Church where there were far greater Corruptions both as to Persons and Practises than can be pretended to be in ours at this day yet though he was the great Reformer of Mankind he forsook not the Jewish Church but assembled with them in their publick Synagogues which answer to our Parish-Churches preached in the Temple though they had made it a Den of Thieves observed their Festivals tho some of them of humane Institution nay commanded his Disciples to continue to hear the Scribes and Pharisees tho they were a most vile and wretched Generation of Men. Great were the Pollutions and Misdemeanours in the Churches of Rome Corinth
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
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
full of Comfort as more largely is expressed in the Homily of Justification As to the Doctrine of Supererogation this is confuted Article 14. Voluntary Works besides over and above Gods Commandments which they call Works of Supererogation cannot be taught without Arrogance and Impiety For by them Men do declare that they do not only render unto God as much as they are bound to do but that they do more for his sake than of bounden duty is required whereas Christ saith plainly When ye have done all that are Commanded to you say We are unprofitable Servants As to making simple Fornication a meer Venial sin Our Church will endure no such Doctrine For as in the Litany she calls Fornication expresly a deadly sin so hath it ever been accounted in Our Church one of the most deadly even considered as distinct from Adultery As to the Church of Romes Damning all that are not of her Communion the Church of England is guilty of no uncharitableness like it and never pronounced so sad a sentence against those in Communion with the Church of Rome as great a detestation as she expresseth in the Homilies especially of her Idolatrous and Wicked Principles and Practices She is satisfied to Condemn the gross Corruptions of that Apostate Church and leaves her Members to stand or fall to their own Master nor takes upon her to Vnchurch her And as to the remaining most Immoral Principles and Practices of the Romish Church which are all as contrary to Natural as to revealed Religion the greatest Enemies Our Church hath cannot surely have the forehead to charge her with giving the least countenance to any such There being no Church in Christendom that more severely Condemns all instances of Unrighteousness and Immorality Thirdly The Church of England is at a mighty distance from the Church of Rome in reference to their Publick Prayers and Offices Whereas our Liturgy hath been by many Condemned as greatly resembling the Mass-Book all that have compared them do know the contrary and that there is a vast difference between them both as to matter and form Although some few of the same Prayers are found in both and three or four of the same Rites of which more hereafter To shew this throughout in the particulars would be a very long and tedious task I will therefore single out the Order of Administration of Infant-Baptism as we have it in the Roman Ritual and desire the Reader to compare it with that in our Liturgy and by this take a measure of the likeness between our Liturgy and the Mass-Book c. there being no greater agreement between the Morning and Evening Services and the other Offices of each than is between these two excepting that besides the Lords Prayer there is no Prayer belonging to the Popish Office of Baptism to be met with in ours For the sake of the Readers who understand no more of the Language that the Popish Prayers and Offices are expressed in than the generality of those that make use of them take the following account of the Popish Admonistration of Infant-Baptism in our own Tongue To pass by the long Bedroul of Preparatory Prescriptions the Priest being drest in a Surplice and Purple Robe calls the Infant to be Baptized by his Name and saith What askest thou of the Church of God the God-Father answers Faith The Priest saith again What shalt thou get by Faith The God-Father replies Eternal Life Then adds the Priest If therefore thou wilt enter into Life keep the Commandments Thou shalt Love the Lord thy God with all thine heart c. and thy Neighbour as thy self Next the Priest blows three gentle puffs upon the Infants face and saith as if we come all into the World possessed by the Devil Go out of him O unclean Spirit and give place to the Holy Ghost the Comforter Then with his Thumb he makes the Sign of the Cross on the Infants Forehead and Breast saying Receive the Sign of the Cross both in thy Forehead and in thy heart Take the Faith of the Heavenly Precepts and be thy manners such as that thou maist now become the Temple of God After this follows a Prayer that God would always protect this his Elect one calling him by his Name that is Signed with the Sign of the Cross c. And after a longer Prayer the Priest laying his hand on the Infants head comes the Benediction of Salt of which this is the Form I exorcize or conjure thee O Creature of Salt in the Name of God the Father Almighty ✚ and in the Love of our Lord Jesus Christ ✚ and in the Power of the Holy Ghost ✚ I conjure thee by the Living God ✚ by the true God ✚ by the Holy God ✚ by the God ✚ which Created thee for the safeguard of Mankind and hath ordained that thou shouldest be consecrated by his Servants to the People entring into the Faith that in the Name of the Holy Trinity thou shouldest be made a wholesome Sacrament for the driving away of the Enemy Moreover we Pray thee O Lord our God that in Sanctifying thou wouldest Sanctifie ✚ this Creature of Salt and in Blessing thou wouldest Bless it ✚ that it may be to all that receive it a perfect Medicine remaining in their Bowels in the Name of the same Jesus Christ our Lord who is about to come to judge the quick and dead and the World by fire Amen This Idle and prophane Form being recited the Priest proceeds in his Work with the poor Infant and next putting a little of this Holy Salt into his mouth he calls him by his Name and saith Take thou the Salt of Wisdom and adds most impiously be it thy propitiation unto Eternal Life Amen This ended with the Pax tecum God Almighty is next mockt with a Prayer That this Infant who hath tasted this first food of Salt may not be suffered any more to hunger but may be filled with Celestial Food c. Now follows another Exorcising of the Devil wherein he is conjured as before and most wofully becalled And next the Priest Signs the Infant again with his Thumb on the Forehead saying And this Sign of the Holy Cross ✚ which we give to his Forehead thou Cursed Devil never dare thou to Violate By the same Jesus Christ our Lord Amen And now after all this tedious expectation we see some Sign of Baptism approaching for the Priest puts his hand again on the Infants head and puts up a very good Prayer for him in order to his Baptism The Prayer being ended he puts part of his Robe upon the Infant and brings him within the Church for he hath been without all this while saying calling him by his Name Enter thou into the Temple of God that thou mayest partake with Christ in Eternal Life Amen Then follow the Apostles Creed and the Pater Noster But after all this here 's more exercise for our Patience for the Priest falls to his fooling
Subscription that is required to the 39 Articles it is very Consistent with Our Churches giving all Men Liberty to Judge for themselves and not Exercising Authority as the Romish Church doth over our Faith for she requires no Man to believe those Articles but at worst only thinks it Convenient that none should receive Orders or be admitted to Benefices c. but such as do believe them not all as Articles of our Faith but many as inferiour truths and requires Subscription to them as a Test whereby to Judge who doth so believe them But the Church of Rome requires all under Pain of Damnation to believe all her long Bed-roul of Doctrines which have only the Stamp of her Authority and to believe them too as Articles of Faith or to believe them with the same Divine Faith that we do the indisputable Doctrines of our Saviour and his Apostles For a proof hereof the Reader may consult the Bull of Pope Pius the Fourth which is to be found at the End of the Council of Trent Herein it is Ordained that Profession of Faith shall be made and sworn by all Dignitaries Prebendaries and such as have Benefices with Cure Military Officers c. in the Form following IN. Do believe with a firm Faith and do profess all and every thing contained in the Confession of Faith which is used by the Holy Roman Church viz. I believe in one God the Father Almighty and so to the end of the Nicene Creed I most firmly admit and embrace the Apostolical and Ecclesiastical Traditions and the other Observances and Constitutions of the said Church Also the Holy Scriptures according to the Sense which our Holy Mother the Church hath held and doth hold c. I profess also that there are truly and properly Seven Sacraments of the New Law instituted by Jesus Christ our Lord and necessary to the Salvation of Mankind although all are not necessary to every individual Person c. I also admit and receive the Received and approved Rites of the Catholick Church in the Solemn Administration of all the foresaid Sacraments of which I have given the Reader a taste I Embrace and Receive all and every thing which hath been declared and defined concerning Original Sin and Justification in the Holy Synod of Trent I likewise profess that in the Mass a True Proper and Propitiatory Sacrifice is Offered to God for the quick and dead And that the Body and Blood of Christ is truly really and substantially in the most Holy Eucharist c. I also Confess that whole and intire Christ and the true Sacrament is received under one of the kinds only I constantly hold that there is a Purgatory and that the Souls there detained are relieved by the Prayers of the Faithful And in like manner that the Saints Reigning with Christ are to be Worshipped and Invoked c. And that their Relicks are to be Worshipped I most firmly assert that the Images of Christ and of the Mother of God always a Virgin and of the other Saints are to be had and kept and that due Honour and Worship is to be given to them I Affirm also that the power of Indulgences is left by Christ in his Church and that the use of them is very Salutiferous to Christian People I acknowledge the Holy Catholick and Apostolick Roman Church the Mother and Mistress of all Churches and I Profess and Swear Obedience to the Bishop of Rome the Successor of St. Peter Prince of the Apostles and the Vicar of Jesus Christ Also all the other things delivered decreed and declared by the Holy Canons and Oecumenical Councils and especially by the Holy Synod of Trent I undoubtedly receive and profess As also all things contrary to these and all Heresies Condemned Rejected and Anathematized by the Church I in like manner Condemns Reject and Anathematize This true Catholick Faith viz. all this Stuff of their own together with the Articles of the Creed without which no Man can be Saved which at this present I truly profess and sincerely hold I will God Assisting me most constantly Retain and Confess intire and inviolate and as much as in me lies will take Care that it be held taught and declared by those that are under me or the Care of whom shall be committed to me I the same N. do Profess Vow and Swear So help me God and the Holy Gospels of God Who when he Reads this can forbear pronouncing the Reformation of the Church of England a most Glorious Reformation 2. As to the Motives our Church proposeth for our belief of the Doctrine of the Holy Scriptures viz. that that Doctrine is of Divine Revelation they are no other than such as are found in the Scriptures themselves viz. the Excellency thereof which consists in its being wholly adapted to the reforming of mens Lives and renewing their Natures after the Image of God and the Miracles by which it is confirmed And as to the Evidence of the truth of the matters of Fact viz. that there were such Persons as the Scriptures declare to have revealed Gods will to the World such as Moses our Saviour Christ and his Apostles and that these Persons delivered such Doctrine and Confirmed it by such Miracles and that the Books of Scripture were written by those whose Names they bear I say as to the Evidence of the truth of these matters of Fact our Church placeth it not in her own Testimony or in the Testimony of any Particular Church and much less that of Rome but in the Testimony of the whole Catholick Church down to us from the time of the Apostles and of Vniversal Tradition taking in that of Strangers and Enemies as well as Friends of Jews and Pagans as well as Christians Secondly We proceed to shew that a Churches Symbolizing or agreeing in some things with the Church of Rome is no Warrant for Separation from the Church so agreeing Agreement with the Church of Rome in things either in their own nature good or made so by a Divine Precept none of our Dissenting Brethren could ever imagine not to be an indispensable duty Agreement with her in what is in its own nature Evil or made so by a Divine Prohibition none of us are so forsaken of all Modesty as to deny it to be an inexcusable sin The Question therefore is whether to agree with this Apostate Church in some things of an indifferent nature be a Sin and therefore a just ground for Separation from the Church so agreeing But by the way if we should suppose that a Churches agreeing with the Church of Rome in some indifferent things is sinful I cannot think that any of the more Sober Sort of Dissenters and I despair of success in arguing with any but such will thence infer that Separation from the Church so agreeing is otherwise warrantable than upon the account of those things being imposed as necessary terms of Communion But I am so far from taking it for granted
that a Church is guilty of Sin in agreeing in some indifferent things with the Church of Rome that I must needs profess I have often wondred how this should become a Question Seeing whatsoever is of an indifferent nature as it is not Commanded so neither is it Forbidden by any Moral or Positive Law and where there is no Law the Apostle saith there is no transgression Sin being according to his definition the transgression of the Law And whereas certain Circumstances will make things that in themselves are neither duties nor sins to be either duties or sins and to fall by Consequence under some Divine Command or Prohibition I have admired how this Circumstance of an indifferent thing 's being used by the Church of Rome can be thought to alter the Nature of that thing and make it cease to be indifferent and become sinful But that it doth so is endeavoured to be proved by that general Prohibition to the Israelites of imitating the doings of the Aegyptians and Canaanites in those Words Lev. 18. 2. After the doings of the Land of Aegypt wherein ye dwell shall ye not do and after the doings of the Land of Canaan whither I bring you shall ye not do neither shall ye walk in their Ordinances This place divers of the Defenders of Nonconformity have laid great weight upon as a proof of the Sinfulness of Symbolizing with the Church of Rome Even in indifferent things But I chuse to forbear the Naming of any whose Arguings I purpose to inquire into because I would prevent if it be possible the least suspition in the Readers that I design in this Performance to expose any Mans weakness in particular or that I am therein Acted by any Personal Piques Now then as to the Text now Cited not to insist upon the Fallaciousness of Arguing without mighty caution from Laws given by Moses to the Israelites so as to infer the Obligation of Christians who are under a dispensation so different from theirs and in Circumstances so vastly differing from those they were in I say not to insist upon the Fallaciousness of this way of Arguing which all considering Persons must needs be aware of if this general Prohibition be not at all to be limited then it will follow from thence that the Israelites might have no usages whatsoever in common with the Aegyptians or Canaanites and therefore in as general terms as the Prohibition runs our Brethren must needs acknowledge that there is a restriction therein intended it being the most absurd thing to imagine that the Israelites were so bound up by God as to be Obliged to an unlikeness to those People in all their Actions For as the Apostles said of the Christians if they were never to Company with Wicked Men they must needs go out of the World we may say of the Israelites in reference to this Case of theirs they then must needs have gone out of the World Now if this general Prohibition After their doings ye shall not do be to be limited and restrained what way have we to do it but by considering the Context and confining the restriction to those Particulars Prohibited in the following verses But I need not shew that the particulars forbidden in all these viz. from v. 5th to the 24th were not things of an indifferent Nature but Incestuous Copulations and other abominable Acts of Vncleanness And God doth Expresly enough thus restrain that general Prohibition in the 24th v. in these Words Defile not your selves in any of these things for in all these the Nations are Defiled which I cast out before you But those that alledge this Text to the foresaid purpose will not hear of the general Proposition's being thus limited by the Context as apparent as it is that it necessarily must because say they we find that God forbids the Israelites in other places to imitate Heathens in things of an Indifferent and Innocent Nature To this I Answer First That supposing this were so it doth not from thence follow that God intended to forbid such imitations in this place the contrary being so manifest as we have seen But Secondly That God hath any where prohibited the Israelites to Symbolize with Heathens in things of a meer Indifferent and Innocent Nature I mean that he hath made it unlawful to them to observe any such Customs of the Heathens meerly upon the account of their being like them is a very great mistake Which will appear by considering those places which are produced for it One is Deut. 14. 1. You shall not Cut your selves nor make any baldness between your Eyes for the dead Now as to the former of these prohibited things who seeth not that 't is Vnnatural and therefore not indifferent And as to the latter viz. the disfiguring of themselves by Cutting off their Eyebrows this was not meerly an indifferent thing neither It being a Custom at Funerals much disbecoming the People of God which would make them look as if they sorrowed for the dead as Men without hope Another place insisted upon for the same purpose is Lev. 19. 19. Thou shalt not let thy Cattle-Gender with a divers kind thou shalt not sow thy ground with mingled seed nor shall a Garment of Linnen and Woollen come upon thee Now these three 't is said are things of so indifferent a Nature that none can be more indifferent I answer 'T is readily granted But where is it said that these things were forbidden because the Heathens used them Maimonides indeed as I learn from Grotius saith that the Aegyptians used these mixtures of Seeds and of Linnen and Woollen in many of their Magical Exploits but 't is universally acknowledged that these things among many other were forbidden to the Jews as Mystical instructions in Moral Duties I have found no other Text made use of to prove meer indifferent things to have been forbidden the Israelites only in regard of Heathens using them which make more for this purpose than these two do nor hardly another that makes so much But if there were never so many it is not worth our while to concern ourselves now with them because though we should suppose a great number of instances of such things as were forbidden those People for no other reason but because the Egyptians or Canaanites used them yet this would signifie nothing to the proving Our Churches Symbolizing with that of Rome in indifferent things to be Unlawful because there is not the like reason why in such things we may not Symbolize with Papists that there was why the Jews should be forbidden to Symbolize in such with those Heathens For there could not be too great a distance and unlikeness between those People and these in their usages in regard of their strangely Vehement inclination to their Superstitious and Idolatrous Practices And upon this account the distance was made wider as our Brethren themselves will acknowledge between the Jews and the Pagans than it ought to be between
from thence on supposition you can make good proof of it It is plain your design in all this talk is to justifie if not a total yet a partial Separation You do indeed to conceal nothing of your Candour after all acknowledge * * * p. 7. That you are very far from thinking that there are not multitudes of Holy and Learned men in our Ecclesia Loquens that in these things are of another mind And therefore I hope you will not excuse Separation from their Churches Nay you say †††p. 9. That hundreds of the Speaking Church are as we believe as far from symbolizing with the Church of Rome you mean in Doctrine as the Articles And that in this thing a Separation from the Silent as well as this part of the Speaking Church must needs be highly Sinfull And in thus declaring you condemn the generality of those that Separate it being well known that Communion with those whom you will acknowledge to be Orthodox Divines and those which you account Heterodox is much alike boggled at But I fear when all is done you condemn onely separation in Heart from these Orthodox men your Undertaking in your 8th Page makes me fear this viz. That all the Valuable persons in Presbyterian and Independent Congregations shall give any reasonable assurance that they are not in Heart divided from a Single Person in the Church of England that speaketh in matters concerning Doctrine as our Church doth in her Articles But if you think that all the Communion you are obliged to hold with these Divâ—nes is onely that of the Heart that is thinking them Orthodox and loving them as such but allow it to be lawfull to refuse to worship God with them nay and not so much as to hear them we thank you for nothing This is such Church Communion as will well consist with rending and tearing the Church in pieces But I pray do not think that all this while I take it for granted that 't is lawfull to separate from the Congregations of those Divines whom we take to be in some points Heterodox Nay upon supposition that your Ecclesia Loquens did as generally depart from the Doctrine of our Church as the Pharisees in our Saviour's time did from the Law of Moses I shall be far from granting that Separation from their Congregations is lawfull except there be a constraint laid upon us to subscribe to their Heterodox Opinions till you can prove that our Saviour allowed of the Jews Separation from the Pharisees which you never can but the contrary who cannot shew He bad his Disciples indeed to beware of the Leaven of the Pharisees and so are we to beware of the Leaven of such Heterodox Teachers but not so to beware of it as not to come within their Churches for that that caution of our Saviour is not to be so interpreted appears not onely from his own practice who was far from being a Separatist from the Jewish Temple or Synagogues and by what he saith Mat. 23. 2 3. In the last Paragraph of your 9th Page you return to speak more directly to our Author And first you reflect upon these words in his Book p. 24. But I am so far from taking it for granted that a Church is guilty of Sin in agreeing in some indifferent things with the Church of Rome that I must needs profess I have often wondered how this should become a Question Seeing whatsoever is of an indifferent nature as it is not commanded so neither is it forbidden by any Moral or Positive Law and where there is no Law there is no Transgression c. To this you say that it is an obvious begging the Question And it might be so if our Author stopt here but he thus proceeds And whereas certain circumstances will make things that in themselves are neither Duties nor Sins to be either Duties or Sins and to fall by Consequence under some Divine Command or Prohibition I have admired how this Circumstance of an indifferent thing 's being used by the Church of Rome can be thought to alter the nature of that thing and make it cease to be indifferent and become sinfull So that this is the Obvious meaning of our Author's words that he hath wondered how it should become a Question whether a Church may lawfully agree in some things with the Church of Rome which the Law of God hath not forbidden And whereas some things that are not forbidden by the Law of God directly are notwithstanding forbidden thereby Consequentially he hath admired how the mere Circumstance of a thing 's being practised by the Church of Rome can speak it to be forbidden by God's Law Consequentially And then he immediately betakes himself to the consideration of some of those Laws given to the Israelites that prohibit their imitating the Doings of the Egyptians and Canaanites which are urged by Nonconformists to prove it unlawfull to imitate the Church of Rome in things of a mere indifferent nature and that that circumstance of their being practised by that Church makes them cease to be indifferent and to become Sinfull And endeavours to shew that this cannot with any shew of reason be gathered from these Laws And how I pray is this an Obvious begging of the Question which is Whether a Church's symbolizing or agreeing in some things with the Church of Rome be a warrant for separatian from the Church so agreeing This I say is the Question which our Author handles But you next make a Question for him and say it is this * * * p. 10. Whether a thing in its own nature indifferent be still indifferent as to Christians use in God's worship when it hath been once used in Idolatrous Services if the use of it be neither Naturally necessary to the worship of God as it is an humane Act nor suitable to the Ends of it nor such without which it cannot in common judgment be decently performed But our Author much more wonders how this should become a Question than how that of his own propounding should For First There are three apparent Contradictions in it It being a contradiction to say concerning the same thing that it is in its own nature indifferent and yet naturally necessary to the Worship of God as it is an humane Act. It being so too to say of the same thing that 't is in its own nature indifferent and yet Vnsuitable to the Ends of Divine Worship It being a contradiction again to say of the same thing that 't is in its own nature indifferent and yet such as without which the Worship of God cannot in common judgment be decently performed For you must mean by things in their own nature indifferent things that are so in Divine Worship for otherwise you trifle egregiously in putting this Question or make your Nonconformists so to doe for whom you put it But you abuse them if you do so for that which divers of them do
that it is an outward and Visible Sign of an inward and Spiritual Grace given to us Ordain'd by Christ himself as a means whereby we receive the same and a Pledg to assure us thereof It is true the Assembly of Divines in their larger Catechism do in that question of their's what is a Sacrament put in an expression or two that point at some Opinions wherein they may be no more agreed amongst themselves than they are with some of our Church But then in their next question what are the parts of a Sacrament they give us the same account with that of our Church-Catechism only a little vary'd in the words viz. The parts of a Sacrament are two the one an outward sensible sign used according to Christs own appointment the other an inward and spiritual Grace thereby signifi'd by all which it is evident we are well enough agreed in the Common acceptation of the word Sacrament And therefore Secondly I proceed to shew that as our Church never did design or intend by the use of the Cross in Baptism to make any new Sacrament of it so according to the common Notion wherein we are agreed as to the word Sacrament there is not any semblance of a Sacrament it can justly be charg'd with And here I might not without some reason insist that as we are agreed in the Definition of a Sacrament that both the outward Sign must signifie an inward Spiritual Grace and also must have its express institution and appointment from Christ we that never suppos'd the use of the Cross in Baptism could confer Grace nor have ever made the least pretext to any Divine appointment for it ought not to be charg'd as introducing a new Sacrament when it hath no pretensions to any one thing that is of the Essence of a Sacrament But I am willing to follow the Argument as they have laid it They say therefore that however we do not call or account it an Holy Sacrament yet forasmuch as we bring a Ceremony into the Church which in the Significations of it seems tantamount to a Christian Sacrament we do thereby usurp the Prerogative of our great Lord and Master setting up our Posts against his Post and our Threshold again his Threshold This they say we do partly 1. as we make the Cross a sign betokening our Faith and Christian courage when in applying it to the Baptis'd Person we say we do it in token that hereafter he shall not be asham'd to confess the Faith of Christ Crucifi'd c. And partly 2. when by an intire Representative of our Church it is determin'd that by the sign of the Cross the Baptis'd Person is dedicated to the service of him that dy'd upon the Cross First they say that by making the sign of the Cross in token that hereafter c. we apply such Significations to it that run it into the nature of a Sacrament using it as an outward Visible sign of an Inward Spiritual Grace As to this we must ingeniously confess that we make use of no Rite or Ceremony in our Church but it is with this design that it should be Significant of some thing or other It would be an odd piece of pageantry indeed to use this or that gesture or action in our Religious services that should have no Signification at all in it and to account it therefore Innocent because it were Impertinent It is the Significancy of it that makes it useful or proper and if there were nothing of that in it it would be very disallowable But then though our Ceremonies are significant and any of them us'd as Memorative Signs to put us in mind of any Duty or Obligation toward God they are not therefore an outward Visible sign of an inward Spiritual Grace that is they are not in the nature of any seal or assurance from God of his Grace to us but hints and remembrances of some Obligation we are under with respect to God And that this kind of significant usages have been all along arbitrarily taken up without any Imputation of introducing a new Sacrament may be made out both from the practice of the Jewish Church notwithstanding the punctual prescriptions deliver'd to them by Moses From the practice of the Christian Church and that both in the very first ages of it and also in all the later Reformations that have been made First take we a view of the Jewish Church and herein 1. We may observe that in their very Passover about which both thing and Circumstances they had such express directions by Moses before they went out of Egypt yet did they in some ages following considerably vary not only in their time of keeping it which having been originally appointed on the Tenth they chang'd it to the Fourteenth day of the Month but in the gesture too In the first institution of it they were to eat it with their loins girded their shooes on their feet and staff in their hand and all as a token of the haste they were then in This gesture of eating the Passover it is not so certain how long it continu'd in the Jewish Church after their coming out of Egypt as it is unquestionable it was chang'd into a discumbing posture that is a posture wherein they took their ordinary meals long before the days of our Saviour and that so warrantably too that our Saviour himself used it And yet this very posture they had taken up if we will believe an Expositor that was no great friend to the Ceremonies of our Church had its Signification too for he tells us that they did it in sign of their rest and security otherwise than V. Ainsw in Exod. 12. 3. they had in Egypt 2. Another instance in the Jewish Church might be that of the Altar of Witness which Phineas after he had made a jealous enquiry upon approv'd of as a standing memorial Josh 22. that they on the other side Jordan profest the true God had Relation to the other tribes and a Right to the Service of God in the Tabernacle of the Congregation 3. But that which seems to come nearest us is what the Jewish Authors do frequently take notice of and that is that as to those whose Office entitled them to the Anointing which by all that doth very evidently appear were only Kings and Priests although the Anointing Oyl as to its confection and ingredients and the manner of doing it as one would think were particularly enough prescrib'd by God yet did the Jews amongst themselves bring in the use of a Significative sign in doing it which seems no where dissallow'd or charg'd as an invasion of Gods Holy Institutions this was to Anoint the Heads of their Kings with the figure of a Crown and their Priests with the figure of an Hebrew ב Maimon II. Melachim or the Greek χ. Not to add that the Synagogue Worship the Rites of Marriage the form of taking Oaths and the like things that had
Pap. of the Presbyt p. 31. before these unhappy Wars began yielded to the laying aside of the Cross and making many material alterations c. They have not those apprehensions of these things that they are unalterable and obligatory upon all Christians as such or that the laying them aside for the bringing about some greater good would be offensive to God I would to God our Brethren at least would but meet us thus far as to throw off those Superstitious prejudices they may have conceiv'd against them and think that as the laying them aside would not be displeasing to God so the use of them cannot be so neither Forgive the expression of Superstitious prejudices For I must suppose we put too high a value upon indifferent rites when we think that either the use or rejection of them will recommend us to God unless there be other accidents of obedience or disobedience to Authority that will alter the Case Otherwise the Imagination we may have of pleasing or displeasing God in any of these things must look like what the Greeks express Superstition by I mean a causeless dread of God It is a passage 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Calvin that it is equally Superstitious to condemn things indifferent as unholy and to command them as if they were holy It is infinitely In 2 Praecept a nobler Conquest over our selves a proper regaining that Christian liberty to which we are redeemed and would be of far happier consequence to the Church of God to possess our selves with such notions of God and of indifferent things as to believe we cannot recommend our selves to him in the least measure by scrupling what he hath interpos'd no Command to make them either Obligatory or Unlawful FINIS A Catalogue of the several Cases c. 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. The first Part. 11. Certain Cases of Conscience c. The second Part. 12. A Discourse of Profiting by Sermons and of going to hear where men think they can profit most 13. A serious Exhortation with some important Advices relating to the late Cases about Conformity recommended to the present Dissenters from the Church of England 14. An Argument for Union taken from the true interest of those Dissenters in England who profess and call themselves Protestants 15. The Case of Kneeling at the Holy Sacrament Stated and Resolved The second Part. 16. The Case of â—ay-Communion with the Church of England considered 17. A Persuasive to frequent Communion c. 18. 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 19. The Case of compelling Men to the Holy Sacrament 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. 5. A Discourse concerning a Guide in matters of Faith c. 6. A Discourse concerning Invocation of Saints 7. A Discourse concerning the Unity of the Catholick Church maintained in the Church of England A PERSUASIVE TO Frequent Communion IN THE HOLY SACRAMENT OF THE Lords Supper LONDON Printed by M. Flesher for Brabazon Aylmer at the Three Pigeons against the Royal Exchange in Cornhill and William Rogers at the Sun against St. Dunstan's Church in Fleetstreet 1684. A PERSUASIVE TO FREQUENT COMMUNION MY design in this Argument is from the Consideration of the Nature of this Sacrament of the Lord's Supper and of the perpetual Use of it to the end of the World to awaken Men to a sense of their Duty and the great Obligation which lies upon them to the more frequent receiving of it And there is the greater need to make men sensible of their Duty in this particular because in this last Age by the unwary Discourses of some concerning the Nature of this Sacrament and the danger of receiving it unworthily such doubts and fears have been raised in the minds of Men as utterly to deter many and in a great measure to discourage almost the generality of Christians from the use of it to the great prejudice and danger of Mens Souls and the visible abatement of Piety by the gross neglect of so excellent a means of our growth and improvement in it and to the mighty scandal of our Religion by the general disuse and contempt of so plain and solemn an Institution of our blessed Lord and Saviour Therefore I shall take occasion as briefly and clearly as I can to treat of these four Points First Of the Perpetuity of this Institution this the Apostle signifies when he saith that by eating this 1 Cor. 11. 26. Bread and drinking this Cup we do shew the Lord's Death till he come Secondly Of the Obligation that lies upon all Christians to a frequent observance of this Institution this is signified in that Expression of the Apostle As often as ye eat this Bread and drink this Cup which Expression considered and compared together with the practice of the Primitive Church does imply an Obligation upon Christians to the frequent receiving of this Sacrament Thirdly I shall 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 their receiving this Sacrament at least so frequently as they ought which Objections are chiefly grounded upon what the Apostle says Wherefore whosoever
Subjects more lov'd commanding equally Bowels and Affections and Duty and Honour Masters and Servants Husbands and Wives and all Relations are kept in their just Bounds and Priviledges With other Churches we make good Works necessary to Salvation but think our selves more modest and secure in taking away Arrogance and Merit and advancing the Grace of Christ With other Men we cry up Faith but not an hungry and a starved one but what is fruitful of good Works and so have all that others contend for with greater modesty and security 3. How fitly this Church is constituted to excite true Devotion When we make our Addresses unto God we ought to have worthy and reverend Conceptions of his Nature a true sense and plain knowledge of the Duty and of the Wants and Necessities for which we pray to be suppli'd All which our Church to help our Devotion plainly sets down describing God by all his Attributes of just wise and laying forth the Vices and Infirmities of Humane Nature and that none else but God can cure our needs When her Sons are to pray the matter of her Petitions are not nice and controverted trivial or words of a Party but plain and substantial wherein all agree Her Words in Prayer are neither rustick nor gay the whole Composure neither too tedious nor too short decently order'd to help our Memories and wandring Thoughts Responsals and short Collects in Publick Devotion are so far from being her fault that they are her beauty and prudence There are few Cases and Conditions of Humane Life whether of a Civil or Spiritual Nature which have not their proper Prayers and particular Petitions for them at least as is proper for publick Devotions When we return our Thanks we have proper Offices to enflame our Passions to quicken our Resentment to excite our Love and to confirm our future Obedience the best instance of gratitude When we Commemorate the Passion of Christ we have a Service fit to move our Affections to assist our Faith to enlarge our Charity to shew forth and exhibit Christ and all his bloudy Sufferings every way to qualifie us to discharge that great Duty She hath indeed nothing to kindle an Enthusiastick heat nor any thing that savours of Raptures and Extasies which commonly flow from temper or fraud but that which makes us manly devout our Judgment still guiding our Affections When we enter first into Religion and go out of the World we have two proper Offices Baptism and Burial full of Devotion to attend those purposes So that if any doth not pray and give thanks communicate and live like a Christian 't is not because the Services to promote these are too plain and hungry beggarly and mean but their own mind is not fitly qualifi'd before they use them bring but an honest mind to these parts of Devotion a true sense of God sober and good purposes and affections well disposed that which is plain will prove Seraphical improve our Judgment heighten our Passions and make the Church a Quire of Angels Without which good disposition our Devotion is but Constitution or melancholy Peevishness Sullenness or Devotion to a Party a Sacrifice that God will not acccept 4. Her Order and Discipline Such are the Capacities and Manners of Men not to be taught onely by naked Vertue a natural Judgment or an immediate Teaching of God but by Ministry and Discipline decent Ceremonies and Constitutions and other external Methods these are the outward Pales and Guards the Supplies and Helps for the Weakness of Humane Nature Our Church hath fitted and ordered these so well as neither to want or to abound not to make Religion too gay nor leave her slovingly neither rude nor phantastick but is cloth'd in Dresses proper to a manly Religion not to please or gratifie our senses so as to fix there but to serve the reason and judgment of our Mind There are none of our Ceremonies which good Men and wise Men have not judged decent and serviceable to the great ends of Religion and none of them but derive themselves from a very ancient Family being us'd in most Ages and most of the Churches of God and have decency antiquity and usefulness to plead for them to help our Memories to excite our Affections to render our Services orderly and comely Were we indeed all Soul and such Seraphical Saints and grown Men as we make our selves we might then plead against such external helps but when we have Natures of weakness and passion these outward helps may be call'd very convenient if not generally necessary and as our Nature is mixt of Soul and Body so must always our Devotion be here and such God expects and is pleas'd with Our Church is neither defective in Power and Discipline had she her just dues and others would do well to joyn with her in her wishes that they might be restor'd which would turn all into Confusion nor yet tyrannical want of Authority breeding as many if not more Miseries than Tyranny or too much Power both of them severe Curses of a Nation But her Government like her Clime is so well temper'd together that the Members of this Christian Society may not be dissolute or rude with her nor her Rulers insolent being constituted in the Church with their different Names and Titles not for lustre and greatness and Secular purposes but for suppression of Vice the maintaining of Faith Peace Order and all Virtues the true Edification of Mens Souls And if those Vices are not reprov'd and chastized which fall under her Cognizance 't is not the fault of her Power but because by other ways ill restrain'd unnecessary Divisions from her hindring her Discipline upon Offenders and so they hinder that Edification which thy contend for This Government is not Modern Particular or purely Humane but Apostolical Primitive and Universal to time as well as place till some private Persons for Number Learning or Piety not to be equall'd to the good Men of old who defended it and obey'd it and suffer'd for it out of some mistakes of Humane frailty and passion or born down with the iniquities of the times began to change it and declaim against it though so very fit and proper to promote Christianity in the World This is a general account of that Edification that is to be had in that Church in which we live a more particular one would be too long for this Discourse but thus much must be said that examine all her particular Parts and Offices you will find none of them light or superstitious novel or too numerous ill dispos'd or uncouth improper or burthensome no just cause for any to revolt from her Communion but considering the present circumstances of Christianity and Men the best constituted Church in the World If therefore Edification be going on to Perfection Heb. 6. 1. 2 Pet. 3. 18. Rom. 15. 2. 1 Cor. 14. 3. or growing in Grace if it is doing good to the Souls of