free from all kind of doubt and scruple about that thing 2. And thus much of Doubting in general I now come to consider it with Respect to Conscience i. e. to enquire how far or in what Cases a mans Conscience is affected with his Doubts Which is our second Point under this Head. There are a thousand Cases in which a man may be doubtful as to which his Conscience shall be no way concerned A mans Doubts may indeed be as various as are the Objects he hath to consider and to make a judgment of and therefore unless we will say that every thing that a man thinks of or saith or doth affects his Conscience we must not say that every Doubt doth As a mans Conscience is not touched nor affected with any thing but his own Actions so neither do a mans Doubts affect or touch his Conscience any further than they concern his Actions So that Doubts about matters of meer Speculation as whether such a Proposition be true or false and likewise Doubts about matter of Fact as whether such a thing was done or not done which do not relate to the Government of a mans own Actions these doubts do not concern his Conscience As a mans Conscience is not affected with his own Actions under any other Notion or Consideration than only as Gods Law is to regulate them viz. as they are either commanded by that Law or forbidden by it so neither do a mans Doubts concerning his Actions affect his Conscience any farther or upon any other account than only as Gods Law may be trangressed by doing or not doing the Action he doubts of that is as he may sin against God either by omitting the Action when Gods Law hath commanded it or by doing it when Gods Law hath 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 finned 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 allows 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 Discourse 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 Mater 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 a 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 Probabilities 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
Law of God than of observing that Law as well as we can though with much unworthiness I will only add this further with reference to this Particular of receiving the Sacrament Though I am far from encouraging any to approach to the Lords Table without due Qualifications or from extenuating any mans sin that comes unworthily unworthily I mean in the Scripture Sense of that word and not as it is understood by many melancholly scrupulous Persons Yet this I say That if Men did seriously consider what a sin it is to live without the Sacrament it being no other than living in an open affront to the express Institution of our Lord Jesus and a renouncing the Worship of God and the Communion of the Church in the great Instance of Christian Worship and Christian Communion And withal what dreadful Consequences they bring upon themselves hereby even the depriving themselves of the chief of those ordinary means which our Lord hath appointed for the obtaining Remission of sins and the Grace and Influence of his Holy Spirit I say if men did seriously consider these things they would not look upon it as so slight a matter voluntarily to Excommunicate themselves as to the partaking in this great Duty and Priviledge of Christians but what apprehensions soever they had of the sin and the danger of receiving unworthily they would for all that think it more sinful and more dangerous not to receive at all I have said enough in answer to this Objection from St. Paul perhaps too much considering how often these things have been said I will now go on with our Case In the Third place therefore let us suppose our Doubting Man for these or such like Reasons as we have given to have such a Sense of his Duty that he generally takes the opportunities that are offered him of doing Honour to our Lord by partaking in his Supper though perhaps he is not often very well satisfied about his Preparation But so it happens that since his last Communicating he finds his Mind in a much worse frame than it used to be He hath lived more loosely 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 a count 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
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 is not bound on either side of the Action but he may either do it or forbear it with a safe Conscience So that if there be any Obligation at all upon a man to Act thus rather than otherwise in a Doubtful Case that Obligation must arise upon one of these two Accounts viz. Either there is some Law of God concerning a Doubting Conscience which hath tied a man up to such precise measures of Acting Or at least a man hath a Perswasion that there is some such Law of God. Now I grant That in both these Cases there doth a direct Obligation pass upon the mans Conscience But then it is to be remembred that this Obligation doth not arise from the mans being Doubtful in his Conscience but from his being resolved in his Conscience That is to say if there be really any such Law of God it is the Obligation of a Right Conscience Or if there be not but the man only judges that there is it is then the Obligation of an Erroneous Conscience But as for the Obligation of a Doubting Conscience there is no such thing The great therefore or indeed the only Point that is to be inquired into in order to the Resolution of our present Question is this Whether there be any Law of God which doth determine our Actions one way or other in the Case of a Doubt and what that Law is Now in answer to this Inquiry I say That it doth not appear that there is any express Law of God in Holy Scripture that hath laid any Obligation upon us as to this particular of a Doubting Conscience either one way or other The only Texts that I know of which are thought to make for this purpose are the two passages in the 14th of the Romans which I have before largely given an account of viz. That in the 5th Verse Let every man be fully perswaded in his own mind And that other in the last Verse He that doubteth is damned if he eat because he eateth not of Faith. But now I think I have made it plain by several Arguments that these Texts do not at all concern our present Case of a Doubting Conscience properly so called So that there being no express Particular Law of God in Scripture about acting with a Doubting Conscience we seem to be left as to that Affair to the General Laws of God as they are declared whether by Nature or Scripture Now the most that any Man can be Obliged to by the General Laws of God whether Natural or Revealed in the Case of a Doubt is only these two things First to use his Endeavour to get himself as well instructed in his Duty as his Circumstances and Opportunities will allow him And Secondly where he is at a loss for Information in that Case to Act as reasonably as he can I do not say that a Man in every Doubtful Case that happens is strictly obliged to thus much But I say it is impossible he should be obliged to more Because indeed more than this he cannot do and no man can be obliged to more than is in his Power Wherever therefore a Man in a Doubtful Case takes care to observe these two things he Acts with a safe Conscience however he may act Doubtingly in that Case Thus far I think we are clear beyond Exception But it may be some will not be satisfied with this Account of our Point but will be putting a farther Question We have before laid down several Rules about a Mans Acting in a Doubtful Case the sum of all which comes to no more than what we have now said viz. That in every doubtful Case a man is to act as reasonably as he can The Question now is Whether a man is strictly bound in Conscience always to follow this Rule Or which is to the same effect Whether a man in a matter concerning which he hath only a pure Doubt may not without sin indifferently chuse either side of the Action though yet perhaps one side doth appear to him more reasonable or more safe than the other This Question is indeed more curious than useful But however since it properly falls under the Argument we are now treating of and tends somewhat to the clearing of it I shall venture to say something to it Only I declare before-hand that I mean not in what I shall say to assert any thing Dogmatically but only to propose in order to further Examination And withal that whether that which we say be true or false it doth not at all affect the Merits of the main Cause we have undertaken That now which I have to say to this Question is this That though it be eternally fit and natural and conducing to a mans Happiness both in this World and the other that he should in all Cases and especially in Doubtful Cases govern his Actions by the best Reason that he hath and certainly the Wiser and the Better any man is the more steadily will he pursue this Rule Yet on the other hand I dare not say that a man is strictly bound in Conscience so to do so as that he is properly guilty of sin if he do not My Reason is
reasonable to be chosen for there is more Probability that this is the right way than the other or there is less harm though you should be mistaken in going this way than the other Now in this Case though a man be not properly obliged under the Guilt of Sin to obey his Conscience because Conscience doth not propose the Choice to him under that Condition yet if he be a Wise and a Good man he will undoubtedly chuse that side which Conscience all things considered hath represented to him to be the most fit and reasonable to be chosen And thus much concerning our Fourth and last General Head. Thus have I largely discussed the Case of a Doubting Conscience in general and answered all the Considerable Enquiries that can be made about it I am not sensible that I have left any material difficulty in this Argument untouched though I am very sensible I have said a great deal more than needed in order to the Resolution of that Case for the sake of which I undertook this Discourse But I intended such a discussion of this Argument as would serve for all other Cases as well as that I do not know whether it be needful to make a particular Application of what I have said upon a Doubting Conscience to the Case of our present Dissenters However it will not be amiss if I offer something towards it if it be but to save the Reader who is concerned in that Case the Labour and Trouble of doing it The Case which I am to speak to is briefly this There are several Persons that are unsatisfied about the Lawfulness of our Communion as it is established and enjoined and that upon several Accounts Some perhaps Doubt of the Lawfulness of all Forms of Prayer Others about the Lawfulness of our 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 join 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 join 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
A DISCOURSE OF CONSCIENCE THE SECOND PART Concerning a Doubting Conscience LONDON Printed for Walter Kettilby at the Bishops-Head in St. Paul's Church-Yard MDCLXXXVIII THE CASE OF A Doubting Conscience I Have in a former Discourse spoken to the case of those Dissenters who separate from the Established Church for this Reason That they are Perswaded that they cannot Lawfully joyn in our Communion I now come to speak to the Case of those who separate from us for a less Reason viz. Because they Doubt whether they may lawfully Communicate with us or no and so long as they thus Doubt they dare not come near us because they fear they should sin against God if they should do any Action with a doubting Conscience To this indeed a short Answer might be given from the former Discourse and that is this That let the Obligation of a Doubting Conscience be as great as we can reasonably suppose it yet if Communion with our Church as it is Established be really a Duty then a Mans Doubts concerning the Lawfulness of it will not make it cease to be so or justifie his Separation from it For if a Mans setled Perswasion that an Action is unlawful will not ordinarily acquit him from Sin if he omit that Action supposing Gods Law hath commanded it as I there shew'd much less will a mans bare Doubt concerning the Lawfulness of an Action justifie his Omission of it in such a Case But because this Answer seems rather to cut the Knot than to unty it it is my meaning in the following Discourse particularly to examine and discuss this Plea of a Doubting Conscience and to shew what little force there is in it to keep any man from Conformity that would otherwise Conform Hoping that some Reader whose Case this is may by what he here finds offer'd toward his satisfaction either be prevail'd with to lay aside his Doubts in the matter of our Communion or at least be convinced that it is more reasonable and safe to communicate with us doubting as he doth than to continue in separation from us In handling this Case of a Doubting Conscience I shall observe the same Method I did in the former Discourse because indeed I cannot think of a better That is I shall endeavour to give an account of these four things I. Of the Nature of a Doubting Conscience and how it is distinguished from the other Kinds of Conscience II. Of the Rule of a Doubting Conscience or what Measures a man is to proceed by for the determining himself in a doubtful Case III. Of the Power that Human Laws Ecclesiastical or Civil have to Over-rule a mans Doubts in any matter IV. Of the Authority of a Doubting Conscience i. e. Whether at all or how far a man is Obliged by it These four Heads do I think take in all the Difficulties that are in the Case of a Doubting Conscience I. I begin with the first Head The Nature of a Doubting Conscience In speaking to which I shall Treat of these three things 1. Of Doubting in general 2. Of such Doubts as do affect or concern a Mans Conscience 3. Of the Difference between the Doubting Conscience and the Scrupulous 1. As to the first of these which is concerning the Nature of Doubting in general we may take Notice That a man is properly said to doubt when he cannot give his Assent to either part of a Contradiction that is cannot make a Judgment whether the thing he is considering be so or be not so but through the equal or at least fair probability that is on both sides of the Question continues irresolute and undetermined now perhaps he thinks this Side the more probable and by and by the other but he is uncertain as to both and cannot fix upon either So that a Doubting Mind is not more usually than properly resembled to a Ballance which by Reason of the equal Weight which is put into both Scales is not cast on either side but hangs in the same Posture or waves up and down without either Scale coming to the bottom Nevertheless in a doubtful Case a man may lean more to one side of the Question than the other and yet continue doubtful still Just as there may be so much more Weight put into one Scale than the other as will be sufficient to incline the Ballance more to that side while yet that Weight is not so considerable as to be able perfectly to turn it so as to carry down the Scale to the usual mark of Down-Weight and there to settle it There is indeed this difference between these two things that a Ballance through the exact equality of the Weights put into each Scale may be so poised as to hang perfectly in aequilibrio without inclination either way and continue so to do but it will be difficult if not impossible to put a Case or a Question where a mans Mind after all things considered is so perfectly indifferent to both sides of it as not to be more inclined to chuse one than the other When once there appears so much more Evidence on one side of the doubtful Case that the Mind is enabled to determine it self and to give a settled assent on that side then the man ceaseth to doubt any longer for that which was a Doubt before is now turned into a Perswasion And if it be a Case wherein Conscience is concern'd that which was before a Doubting Conscience is now chang'd into a Resolved Conscience Here to resume our former Comparison the Ballance no longer hangs in aequilibrio or moves unsetledly this way or that way but is plainly turned and fixed on one side It is true in this Case a man doth not always determine himself with the same degree of Perswasion or Satisfaction to his own Mind Sometimes the Evidence is so strong as to command an entire Assent of his Understanding an Assent so full that it hath not the least mixture of doubtfulness in it and this we call an Assurance or a full Perswasion At other times the Evidence may be of force enough to gain an Assent but yet not so strong an Assent as to exclude all Doubt of the contrary and this kind of Assent we call an Opinion or a probable Perswasion And something like this we may observe in the Ballance The Scale that preponderates is not always carried down with the same Force and Briskness but according as the Weight that turns the Ballance is greater or less so in proportion it may plainly be discern'd that the Scale descends either more strongly and nimbly or more weakly and slowly But still in both these Cases the man hath formed a Judgment of the Point the Ballance is turned and wherever this happens there is an end of the Doubt or Aequilibrium and consequently if it be in a Case that concerns a mans Conscience it ceases to be any longer a Doubting Conscience and becomes resolved and determined though perhaps not fully satisfied and
with the fewest Absurdities and evil Consequences of all sorts and doth best serve all the Interests Spiritual and Temporal taken both together that a Wise and a Good Man can propose to himself I say if any man do mean this by the Safer side I do readily agree with him that it will for ever and in all Cases be a True and a Wise and a Good Rule nay I add the only one to a Doubting Conscience to follow the safer side But then in this sense of Safety the safer side and the more Reasonable is all one thing And consequently this Rule of following the safer side and that I before laid down of following the more Reasonable are the same in sense though differently expressed Only I think this latter way of expression is more plain and less liable to misconstruction and therefore I chose it But it is indifferent to me how Men word things so long as we agree in our Sense II. Having thus given an Account of the General Rule by which a man is to determine himself in Doubtful Cases I come now in the Second place to treat of the several Heads or Sorts of Doubtful Cases wherein a Mans Conscience is concerned and to make Application of this Rule to them and this it will be no hard matter to do admitting the Grounds we have before laid down There is no Doubt wherein Conscience is concerned but it will of necessity fall under one of these two Sorts It is either a Single Doubt or a Double one We call that a Single Doubt when a man doubts only on one side of the Action but is very well satisfied as to the other As for Instance he doubts concerning this or the other particular Action whether it be Lawful for him to 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 Uncertainty 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 Usury so that he and his Family must in time starve unless they be maintain'd 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 Usury 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
in such a Condition that he apprehends he runs an equal danger of sinning whether he receives the Sacrament or receives it not And withal 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 by doing the former 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 Doubting 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 in great danger to lose that sense of Virtue and Religion that he now hath upon his Spirit because he denyes himself the use of those Means and Helps which are most principally necessary for the preserving and maintaining it Now I say supposing all other things in the Case equal this very Consideration alone will prevail with a reasonable Man to come to the Sacrament rather than forbear it even at the same time that he mightily doubts whether he shall not receive unworthily Thus have I given a large Exemplification of all our Rules concerning a Double Doubt in this Instance of receiving the Holy Communion If I have dwelt too long upon this Subject I hope the Frequency and the Importance of the Case will in some measure excuse me III. Having thus prepared our way by settling the Notion and the Rule of a Doubting Conscience I come now more directly to the main Business that is before us and that is to give an Account what share Humane Laws Ecclesiastical or Civil have in the Rule of a Doubting Conscience or what Power they have to over-rule a mans Doubts in any Case which according to the method I proposed is the Third general Enquiry I am to resolve This is indeed the great Point that is disputed between us and those of the Separation Nay I may say it is the Point upon which that whole Controversie turns so far as a Doubting Conscience is concerned in it And therefore I shall discuss it as carefully as I can but yet in such a general way as that what I have to offer may serve for all other Doubtful Cases of this Nature as well as this which we are now concerned in Their Assertion generally is this generally I say For there are some of the Dissenters and those as Learned and Eminent as any who have declared themselves of another Opinion viz. That wherever a Man Doubts concerning the Lawfulness of an Action that very Doubt of his is a sufficient Reason to make him forbear that Action though Lawful Authority hath commanded it On the other side our Assertion is That wherever Lawful Authority hath Commanded an Action that Command is generally speaking a sufficient Warrant for a Man to do that Action though he Doubts whether in it self it be Lawful or no. That I may speak clearly to this Point I shall First premise some things in order to our more distinct understanding the State of the Question Secondly I shall shew the Grounds and Reasons of our Assertion Thirdly I shall endeavour to answer the Chief Arguments that are brought on the other side I. What I think needful to be premised for the right apprehending the State of the Question I shall comprise in these following Particulars by which it may be easily discerned how far we agree with the Dissenters in this matter and in what we differ from them First We do readily own with them that no Anthority upon Earth can oblige its Subjects to do any Action which the Law of God hath forbidden or to forbear any Action which the Law of God hath commanded Secondly We agree likewise with them in this That wherever any Subject hath taken up an Opinion or Perswasion that such an Action which his Governours have obliged him to is against the Law of God though it be a false Opinion or Perswasion yet it will so far bind him that he cannot in that Instance obey their Laws without offending God. But then we say on the other hand That though he cannot Obey without sin so long as this Perswasion continues yet he is at the same time guilty of sin in disobeying if he should prove to be mistaken supposing that it was through his own fault that he fell into that mistake Thirdly We acknowledge further That in a Case where a Man cannot be said to be Perswaded that the particular Action enjoyned by Authority is a sinful Action but only he Doubts whether it be so or no Yet if the Man hath a general Perswasion that no Publick Law will warrant him to act against his Private doubt in this Case he can no more do the Action enjoyned without sin than he could in the former Case But then if this Notion of his be false as it is my present business to shew that it is so he cannot be excused from sin in disobeying his Superiors unless upon the former account of inculpable Ignorance Fourthly We say this farther That a Culpable Doubt doth no more excuse the doing an Evil Action than a Culpable Ignorance i. e. it doth not excuse it My meaning is this If a man should be so little instructed in his Religion as to Doubt whether that which is plainly enjoyned by Gods Law be a Duty or no Or whether that which is plainly forbid by Gods Law be a sin or no so plainly I mean that it is the duty of every Honest Man to know this and he must be most criminally Ignorant that can be so stupid as to make a Doubt of it If I say in such a Case as this a man should Doubt whether the thing commanded by his Superiours was Lawful or no We are so far from saying that a Man
doth well in obeying his Superiours in such an instance where their commands do so manifestly contradict the Laws of God that on the contrary we affirm the man is highly accountable to God for all such Actions that he doth though they were done purely in obedience to that Authority which God hath set over him and purely in compliance with this Principle we are now contending for viz. That in all Doubtful Cases it is most reasonable to govern our Actions by the Commands of our Superiours Far are we therefore from asserting That whatever our Governours do command the Subject is bound to perform so long as he only Doubts but is not perswaded of the unlawfulness of the thing commanded And that if there be any sin in the Action he that commands it is to answer for it and not he that obeys For we do believe that in matters where a mans Conscience is concerned every one is to be a Judge for himself and must answer for himself And therefore if our Superiours do command us to do an Action which their Superiour God Almighty hath forbid we are offenders if we do that Action as well as they in commanding it and that whether we do it Doubtingly or with a Perswasion of its Lawfulness But then these two things are always to be remembred First That this is true only in such Cases where as I said a man is bound to know that Gods Law hath forbid that Action which his Governours do command and it is either through his gross carelesness or some other worse Principle in him that he knows it not or is doubtful of it For wherever a man is innocently and inculpably Ignorant or Doubtful how the Law of God stands as to such a particular matter which Authority hath obliged him to as neither having means to come to the knowledge of it or if he had the Circumstances of his condition not requiring that he should so accurately inform himself about it In such a Case as this I say a man cannot formally be said to be guilty of sin in obeying his Lawful Superiors though the instance in which he obeys should happen to contradict some Law of God. For the Law of God here is as no Law to him that is it doth not oblige him because he neither knows it nor is bound to know it And where there is no Law there is no transgression And then further this is also to be remembred that when we own that a man may be guilty of sin as well in obeying his Superiours when he only doubts of the Lawfulness of the Action commanded as when he is Perswaded that the Action is unlawful I say this we are to remember that when ever this Case happens the mans sin doth not lye in his obeying his Superiors with a Doubting Conscience which is commonly run away with For the man would as certainly sin if in this Case he did the Action with a Perswasion that it was Lawful as he doth in doing it with a Doubt whether it be Lawful or no. But the sin lies here viz. in doing an Action which Gods Law hath forbid and which the man would have known to be an ill Action if he had been so honest and so careful in minding his Duty as he should have been It is his Acting contrary to a Law of God that here makes the matter of the sin and it is his vitious criminal Ignorance of that Law which gives the Form to it But as for the obeying his Superiours whether with a Doubt or without one that is no part or ingredient of the sin at all Fifthly We add this further That whatever Power or Right we give to our Superiours for the over-ruling a Private Doubt it is not to be extended so far as either to destroy the Truth or to supersede the Use of those Rules I have before laid down in order to the directing a mans proceeding in the Case of a Double Doubt For this Case of obeying the Commands of our Superiours when we doubt of the Lawfulness of them being a Double Doubt as properly as any other those Rules are here to take place as much as in any other instance And therefore where ever a mans Doubts are in this Case very unequal That is to say he apprehends himself in much greater danger of sinning if he obey his Superiors in this particular instance than if he obey them not as having abundantly more Reason to believe that their Commands are Unlawful than that they are Lawful In that Case we cannot say he is obliged to obey but should rather disobey supposing all other Considerations be equal For no man is bound to obey his Superiours any farther than they command Lawful things And therefore if it be two to one more Probable that their Command is Unlawful than that it is Lawful it is likewise more Probable that a man in this Instance is not to obey them And a greater Probability caeteris paribus is alway to be chosen before a less according to our First Rule But then though the Authority of our Superiours alone will not in this Case be of force enough to retrieve the Ballance which is so far inclined the other way and to turn it on its own side yet there may be and very usually are such other Arguments drawn from the Consideration of the greater sin and the more dreadful Consequences of disobeying in this instance than of obeying as will to any reasonable man out-weigh all the Probabilities on the other side so long as they are not so great as to create a perswasion and make it reasonable for the man rather to do the Action how strong soever his Doubts be of the unlawfulness of it so long as they are but Doubts than to omit it after Lawful Authority hath enjoyned it But however this happen It is always to be born in mind as before that if it should prove that our Superiours do command nothing in the particular Instances but what they Lawfully may do It will not justifie any mans disobedience to say that he apprehended it was more dangerous or more sinful to obey them than to disobey them For our Mistakes and false Reasonings will not take off from the Obligation that is upon us to obey our Lawful Superious in their Lawful Commands unless as I have often said we can satisfie our selves that in those Instances we neither were bound nor had sufficient means to understand better And now having thus cleared our way by removing from our Question those things that are Foreign to it and which indeed by being usually blended with it have made it more intricate than otherwise it would be we are pretty well prepared to propose our Point In the Sixth place then Excluding as we have done out of our Case all those Things and Circumstances we have been speaking of with none of which we have here to do the plain Question before us is this Whether in the Case of a
I have already answered in my Proofs of our Assertion so that the Third only remains to be spoken to However I will name the two first The First Argument is drawn from the mischievous Consequences of our Doctrine For say they If a man should think himself obliged in every doubtful Case to be determined by the Command of his Superiours it would be the ready way to involve him often-times in most grievous sins As for instance if a man should so halt between two opinions as to doubt whether Jehovah or Baal was the true God as the Israelites sometimes did and at the same time as it then happened among them the Chief Ruler should command that Baal should be worshipped Why now in this Case say they according to your way of resolving Doubts the man must be obliged to worship an Idol and to renounce the true God. This is the Argument But it is no Argument against us Because in the stating of our Question we have excluded all such Doubts out of it as do proceed from a mans Gross and Criminal Ignorance of his Duty as it is Apparent and Notorious that the Doubt in this Instance doth On the contrary we are as forward to acknowledge as they that if any man do an Action that is plainly contradictory to the Laws of God it is not his Ignorance and much less his Doubtfulness that will excuse him though he do it in obedience to his Governours So that though this Argument would fall heavy enough upon those that plead for an Absolute Blind Obedience to Authority in all things indiscriminately which no man of the Church of England doth Yet it doth not at all touch us who only assert That where we doubt equally whether an Action be Lawful or no 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 Foreign 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 because 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
this Because there is no Law of God which doth oblige us in all Cases to do that which is Best And if we be not bound to do always that which is Best we are not bound to do always that which is most Reasonable for certainly that which is Best is always most Reasonable And if we be not bound to do that which is most Reasonable much less are we bound to do that which is Safest because that which is Safest is not always either Best or most Reasonable And if there be no Law of God that doth oblige us to any of these things then it is certain we do not sin if we Act otherwise For where there is no Law there is no Transgression Now That the first of these Principles is true we have as good Proof as can be desired viz. the Authority of St. Paul who hath in the 7th of the first of the Corinthians thus determined And if that be true the other two must needs be so likewise because they follow from it by unavoidable Consequence Taking now this for granted I ask what Law doth a man Transgress that in a purely Doubtful Case chuseth either side indifferently without respect to what is Safest or most Reasonable Always supposing that the side he chuseth be not in it self evil and forbidden by God. I say according to these Principles he transgresseth no Law at all and consequently cannot properly be said to sin at all If the man be at all guilty it is upon one of these accounts viz. either because he Acteth against the dictate of his Conscience or because he Acteth against the Law of God in preferring that which is less reasonable and safe before that which is more so Now Upon the former account he is not at all guilty for his Conscience hath passed no Dictate no Verdict in this matter and therefore he cannot be supposed to act against any such Dictate or Verdict The man is in such a state that he either believes he may act as he doth without violation of his Duty Or at least he hath no belief to the contrary so that his Conscience doth not any way Condemn him And as for the other thing of his not chusing that side of the Doubtful Case which appeared to him most reasonable it is true if there was any Law of God which obliged him to make such a Choice he would be guilty of sin if he chose otherwise But now it doth not appear that there is any such Law of God. Nay so far from that that it appears from St. Paul that there is no such Law but that every man is left to his own liberty in this matter always supposing that he take care not to chuse or do any thing that he judgeth to be inconsistent with his Duty which in our Case we do likewise suppose But then having said this we must add further That though we here have concluded that no man in a Doubtful Case properly so called is strictly obliged by any Law of God under the penalty of sin to chuse one side more than another but may indifferently chuse either Yet in the first place Whoever doth believe or is perswaded in his own Mind either that he ought not at all to Act against a Doubt or that in every Doubtful Case he is bound to follow the safer side such a man so long as he so believes cannot without sin Act according to the Principles we have now laid down And Secondly We are far from encouraging any man to act thus hand over head in a Doubtful Case much less from commending him for so doing For though we say that strictly speaking a man doth not sin which way soever he Act in a purely doubtful Case yet on the other hand I think he is but in a low Dispensation as to Vertue and Goodness that never looks further into his Actions nor takes more care about them than only that they be not directly sinful He that is heartily Good will with St. Paul not only consider what things are Lawful but what things are Expedient and do Edifie It will not ordinarily be sufficient to ingage such a man in an Action to satisfie him that he may do that Action without transgressing any Law of God But he will examine whether the doing or forbearing the Action doth more serve the ends of Vertue and Charity And accordingly as that appears to him so will he determine his Choice In a word The Better and the more Vertuous any man is the more delicate and tender sense will he have not only of that which the Law of God hath precisely made his Duty and so in a proper Sence doth oblige his Conscience but also of every thing that is Reasonable and Excellent and Praise-worthy So that it will really grate upon his mind to do many things which in strict speaking cannot be accounted unlawful or forbidden And thus it is in our present Cas If we suppose a man to be a Devout Christian and a sincere Lover of God he will not be able to prevail with himself in a Case where he Doubteth to chuse either side indiscriminately though if he should I do not know as I said before what Law of God he transgresseth but he will weigh and consider the Reasons on both sides and that which appears to him after such Consideration to be most reasonable and conducing to Gods Glory and his own and the Worlds good that shall have the preference To come to a conclusion The sum of what I have now said is this As Conscience is the immediate Guide of our Actions So the Rule by which Conscience it self is to be guided is the Law of God and nothing else Though therefore we cannot be safe in following our Conscience where our Conscience is not guided by the Law of God because as I have often said our false Judgment of things doth not cancel our Obligation to act according to what the Laws of God require of us unless we can justly plead unblameable Ignorance of those Laws Yet on the other hand where-ever Conscience tells us that me must do this Action because the Law of God hath commanded it we must do it or we sin And again Where-ever Conscience tells us that we must avoid this Action because the Law of God hath forbidden it we must forbear that Action or we sin But if Conscience cannot say that this Action is commanded or forbidden there we are not tyed under the penalty of sinning either to do or to forbear that Action But yet if a Mans Conscience should thus suggest to him Though I cannot say directly that this Action is a Duty or that it is a sin because I am at a loss how the Law of God stands as to this matter and consequently I cannot lay any direct Obligation upon you either way yet my advice is that you would chuse this way rather than the other For this way all things considered appears most fit and
Case where he is entangled by a wilfully Erroneous 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 hath weight enough with a Wise man to turn the Balance on that side and to make that which abstractedly considered was a Doubtful Case to be clear and plain when it comes cloathed with such Circumstances As I gave Instances in the Case of Usury and Law-Suits And twenty more might be added to them if it were 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 Worshipping 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-balance 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 Lawfulness of the things enjoined in our Communion doth persist in disobedience to the Government and Separation from the Church I wish this were 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 Unity 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 Balance 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 Probability 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 Umpire 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 are not discovered by our Governours either in Church or State. No nor by as Learned and Religious Divines of all Perswasions as any in the World. The most Divines by far the most and those as Pious and as Able as any are clearly of Opinion that there is nothing Unlawful in our Worship but that on the contrary all things therein prescribed are at least Innocent and free from sin if not Pure and Apostolical So that if it should at last prove that they are all mistaken Yet the Law of God which forbids these things being so very obscure and the Sense of it so hardly to be found out it is a great Presumption that a man may very innocently and inculpably be Ignorant of it And if so it will be a very little or no sin at all in him to act against it Because if it was not his Duty to know this Law it cannot be his Sin that his Practice is not according to it And if it was his Duty to know it yet it being so obscurely delivered and only to be gathered by such remote Consequences it can at most be but a Sin of Ignorance in an ordinary Person where so many of the best Guides are mistaken if he should transgress it And then farther This must likewise be considered That if Conformity to our Liturgy and Worship should prove a sin in any Instance Yet the Evil Consequences of it extend no farther than the Mans Person that is guilty of it There is no damage ariseth either to the Christian Religion or to the Publick Interest of the Kingdom by any mans being a Conformist But on the contrary as things stand with us Unity and Conformity to the Established way seem to bring a great advantage to both as I hinted before and to be a probable means to secure us from many Dangers with which our Reformed Religion and the Peace of the Kingdom is threatned Well but now on the other hand Let us suppose the contrary side of the Question to be true viz. That our Governours in this matter are in the Right and we are in the Wrong That there is nothing required of us in the Church of England as a Term of Communion but what is very Innocent and Lawful however it be our misfortune to Doubt that there is and in a zealous Indulgence to these Doubts we take the liberty to live in open disobedience to our Lawful Governours and to break the Unity of the Church into which we were Baptized I say admitting the thing to be thus what kind of Sin shall we be guilty of then Why certainly we are guilty of no less a Sin than causlesly dividing the Body of Christ against which we are o severely cautioned in the New Testament We are guilty of the Breach of as plain Laws as any are in the Bible viz. Of all those that oblige us to keep the Unity of the Spirit in the Bond of Peace that Command us to Obey those that are over us in the Lord to be subject to the Higher Powers to submit to every Ordinance of man for the Lords sake to be subject not only for Wrath but for Conscience sake I say these plain Laws we disobey for Conscience sake and we disobey them too in such Instances where we have the whole Catholick Church of old and far the greatest and the best part of the present Church of a different Persasion from us Well but as if this was not enough What are the Consequences of this our Sin For by the Consequences of a sin the greatness of it is always to be estimated I speak as to the Material part of it with which we are here concerned Why they are most Terrible and Dreadful both with respect to our selves and others By this unnatural Separation we do for any thing we know put our selves out of the Communion of the Catholick Church and consequently out of the enjoyment of the ordinary means of Salvation We maintain and keep up Divisions and Disorders in the Church and lend a helping hand to all those Animosities and Hatreds all that bitter Contention and Strife and Uncharitableness which hath long torn the very Bowels of Christs Church and given occasion to that Deluge of Atheism and Profaneness and Impiety which hath over-spread the Face of it We put Affronts upon our Lawful Governours who should be in the place of God to us We give Scandal to all our Brethren that make a Conscience of living Peaceably and Piously And lastly as we offer a very fair Handle and Pretence to all Discontented and Factious men to Practice against the Best of Governments So we take the most effectual course to Ruine the Best Constituted Church in the World and with it the Reformed Religion in this Kingdom This now being the Nature and these being the Consequences of our Separation from the Established Church among us I leave it to any indifferent man to Determine whether any Doubt about the Lawfulness of our Communion though that Doubt be backed with greater Probabilities than do appear on the other side nay if you will with all the Probabilities that can consist with the nature of a Doubt can have weight enough to Ballance against such a Sin and such Consequences as Separation in our Case doth involve a man in I think there is no unconcerned Person but will pronounce that supposing where there are Doubts on both sides a man is to chuse that side on which there is the least appearance of Sin he is in this Case certainly bound to chuse Communion with the Established Church rather than Separation from it And that is all I Contenâ—â—â— for But now after all this is said it must be acknowledged that if there be any man who hath other apprehensions of these matters and that after a Consideration of all things that are to be said for or against Conformity it doth appear to him upon the whole matter both more probable that our Communion is sinful than that it is a Duty and withal that to Communicate with us will involve him in a greater sin and in worse Consequences than no continue in Separation I say if any man have so unfortunate an understanding as to make such an estimate of things we must acknowledge that according to all the Rules of a Doubting Conscience such a man is rather to continue a Non-conformist than to obey the Laws of the King and the Church But then let him look to it for his acting in this Case according to the best Rules of a Doubting Conscience will not as I said before at all acquit him either of the Guilt or Consequences of Criminal Schism and Disobedience Supposing that indeed he is all along under a mistake as we say he certainly is and that there is nothing required in our Communion that he might not honestly and lawfully comply with as there certainly is not Unless in the mean time the man fell into these mistakes without any fault 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 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 Established upon this Pretence That it is against their Conference to joyn in it is stated and discussed 2. A Resolution of this Case viz. Whether it be Lawful to Seporate from the Publick Worship of God in the Parochial 〈◊〉 lies of England upon that new Pretence which some Men make of the Case being much 〈…〉 from what it was when the Puritans wrote against the Browâ—â—â—s and the Presbyters 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 Câ—â—â—â—s of England The Second Of the necessity of the use of Common-Prayer in Publick All Three Printed for Walter Kettilby
between the Evil of condemning an Innocent Person and acquitting a Guilty one it being Murder in the one Case the Judge or Jury should rather follow the safer side than the more Probable and so clear the man rather than find him Guilty Fourthly If the Case be such that the Man doubts equally on both sides and the sin he is afraid of appears likewise to him to be equal on both sides Here other Considerations are to turn the Ballance In this Case he is to consider what Prudential Inducements he has to do the Action or forbear it as how far his Ease and Quiet his Advantage and Benefit his good Name and Reputation his Friends or his Family is concerned one way or other and since all other Considerations that are of a Moral Nature are equal on both sides those of this kind which are the strongest must add so much weight to the Scale as to determine the Man either to do the Action he doubts about or to let it alone And indeed it cannot be denyed that these Considerations will often have a great Influence even upon a good Man not only in the Case I have now put where the directly Moral Arguments are equal on both sides but in all the other doubtful Cases I before mentioned We may talk very rationally about the Degrees of Probability and the Degrees of Sin and what weight each of them is to have with us and all this with so much Evidence that no Man can deny the reasonableness of the Rules we lay down in Theft But yet when we come to Act we find that scarce any Man doth exactly proceed according to these Rules but mixes some of these Prudential Considerations which I have mentioned with his Deliberations and though they do not wholly yet they help to turn the Ballance And for my part I dare not say that all those who thus proceed are to be blamed for so doing supposing that the Case wherein they thus Act be a Case of pure Doubt and there be no Perswasion on either side and withal that the Man who thus proceeds is satisfied in his own Mind with his proceeding The truth is when all is said every Man in doubtful Cases is left to his own Discretion and if he Acts according to the best Reason he hath he is not culpable though he be mistaken in his Measures These are all the Rules that are to be given in the Case of a Double Doubt And I think no body can object against the Truth of them But I am sensible of another Objection that may be made and that is Why I do mention them at all Since to the Generality of Men for whom this Discourse is intended they seem altogether unpracticable For how few are there who are Competent Judges of these different Degrees of Probability or Sinfulness in an Action that we here talk of and much less are capable of so ballancing these things one with another as to be able from thence to form a good Judgment upon the whole Matter But to this I answer That if Rules are to be given at all for the determining Men in Doubtful Cases we must give these because we can give no other These being the only Principles that Men have to govern their Actions by in these Cases And I trust also they will not be wholly useless to the most ordinary Capacities for the Purposes they are intended Because all may hereby at least learn thus much viz. What Methods they are to proceed by for the guidance of their Actions in Doubtful Cases And though they may have false Notions of the Dangers and the Degrees of particular Sins and so may sometimes make false Applications of these Rules to their own Case yet it is enough for their Justification as I said before that they have Reasoned as well as they can Since they are not bound to Act in Doubtful Cases according to what is best and most reasonable in it self But it is abundantly sufficient that they do endeavour it But to render these Rules about a Double Doubt more intelligible and more useful I think it will not be amiss to give my Reader a Specimen both how they are to be applyed to particular Cases and likewise when they are applyed what light they give to a Man for the chusing his way in any Doubtful Case he happens to be ingaged in And since it would take up too much room to give every particular Rule a several Instance I shall pitch upon one Case under which I may consider all the Varieties of a Double Doubt I have now represented and it shall be that Celebrated Case of the Sacrament than which we have not a greater or a more frequent Instance of this kind of Doubt in any Case among us And because I would not by the discussion of this Case divert my Reader against his will from the main Argument I have taken care to have it so marked in the Print that every one may without trouble if he have no mind to read it pass it over as a long Parenthesis and go on to the next Point This is the Case Here is a Man that believes it to be his Duty to take all opportunities of Receiving the Sacrament or at least to take them frequently But on the other side such is his condition that he is constantly under great Fears and Apprehensions of his being unqualified for it and to receive the Sacrament Unworthily he knows to be a great Sin Not that there is any grievous notorious Sin lies upon his Conscience unrepented of much less that he is ingaged in some vicious Course which he is unwilling that his new Vows at his approach to the Lords Table should divorce him from For indeed he desires and endeavours in all things to live honestly and to keep a Conscience void of offence towards God and towards Man. But this is the Case He is not so devout a Christian nor lives so Pure and Spiritual a Life as he thinks becomes the Partakers of such Heavenly Food Or perhaps he cannot bring himself to so feeling a Sense and Contrition for his past Sins or such ardours of Love and Devotion to our Saviour as he hath been taught that every worthy Communicant ought to be affected with Or perhaps he wants Faith in the Blood of Christ not being able to apply the Benefits of his Passion so comfortably to his own Heart as he thinks he ought to do Or perhaps in the last place his mind is so haunted with a company of idle and naughty Fancies especially when he sets himself to be more than ordinarily serious that he thinks it would be a great Profanation of the Sacrament for him to come to it in such Circumstances These or such like are the things that trouble him And though he hath several times endeavoured to put himself into a better condition yet he could never satisfie himself nor get over these difficulties What now must this Man do He
would fain receive the Sacrament as thinking himself bound to do it but he dare not receive it as looking upon himself to be unqualified for it If he do not come to the Lords Table he denies his Attendance on the most Solemn Ordinance of Christianity and so doubts he sins on that account If he do come he doubts he approaches unworthily and so sins upon that account It is here to be remembred that the Question to be spoken to in this Case is not this What course the Man is to take for the Curing or Removing his Doubtfulness in this matter that so he may come to the Sacrament with Satisfaction to his own mind But this Supposing the Man after all his endeavours cannot cure or remove his Doubt what he must do must he come to the Sacrament or must he forbear One of them he must do and yet which of them soever he chuseth he fears he sins If the former had been the Question the Resolution of it would have been thus That the Man is to use the best means he can to get better Instruction and Information about the Nature and Ends of the Christian Sacrament and about the Qualities and Dispositions that are needful to fit a man for it particularly those of Faith and Repentance For it is the Mans Ignorance or Mistake about these things that makes him pass so hard a Censure upon himself and so occasions all the Doubtfulness in this Case If he once come rightly to understand these Points his Doubts would of themselves fall to the Ground and the Man would be perfectly satisfied that as his Case is supposing it to be such as I have now represented he may without any Fear or Scruple in the World at any time approach to the Holy Table because he is indeed in such a state and disposition of mind as renders him habitually qualified for the performance of that Duty But this as I said is not the Question before us we here suppose the Man either through want of Means of Instruction or through strong Prejudices from Education or the like to be incapable at present of this Satisfaction and to be in great Perplexity on both sides and that which we are to enquire into is to which side of the doubtful Case he must determine himself Shall he receive the Sacrament doubting as he doth or shall he forbear it doubting as he doth Now I say a man hath no other way of coming to a Resolution of this Question but by applying the Rules I before laid down to his present Case which may be done in this manner Since the Man we speak of doubteth that he sins whether he come to the Sacrament or forbear the First thing to be considered is on which side he doubts least or which side appears to him most likely and probable to be free from the danger of sinning For if all other things in the Case be equal the Ballance is to be turned on that side according to our first Proposition Now if our present Question be put upon this Issue I am confident the Man whose Case I am representing will think it more reasonable to repair to the Sacrament even in that evil posture he takes himself to be than customarily to abstain from it because by thus doing he doth certainly follow the more probable and the less doubtful or dangerous side of the Question For it is evident he cannot pretend to be half so certain of this Particular viz. That he is unprepared for the Sacrament which is the reason of his abstaining as he is certain in the General that it is his Duty to frequent it If indeed the Man was a Person of ill Life and Manners Or if he had been lately guilty of any Notorious Wilful Sin and came to the Lords Table with that sin upon his Conscience unrepented of Then I will grant he had some reason to believe that he was as much in danger of sinning by receiving unworthily as by withdrawing himself from Gods Ordinance But the Case here is not so The Man is really an honest well-meaning Christian nor hath he done any thing of late which can give him any suspicion of his having forfeited that Title Only through his Mistake about the Notion of preparation for the Sacrament he apprehends he is not qualified as he ought to be though yet if most others were to be Judges of his Condition they would say he was Why certainly in this Case it must be evident to the Man that he runs a greater danger of transgressing the Law of God by absenting himself from the Communion especially if he do it customarily than if he should come to it with all his Fears and Doubts about him For as I said his Fears and Doubts of his own unworthiness cannot possibly be so well grounded as his Fears and Doubts that he sins against God by habitually denying his attendance on that great Christian Service For those are founded on the express Laws of the Gospel The others are founded only on uncertain conjectural Surmises about his own condition That is to say he is certain that he is bound to take frequent opportunities of paying his homage to Jesus Christ in the Sacrament but he cannot pretend to have such assurance in his Case that he is unqualified for paying that homage But Secondly Let us suppose the Doubt is equal on both sides That is to say that the Man hath as much reason to believe that he is an unworthy Receiver if he receives at all as he hath reason to believe that it is a Sin in him if he do not receive Which yet can hardly be supposed in our Case but let us suppose it nay if you please let us suppose the Man doth certainly sin whether he receives or forbears Here then this comes to be considered which of these two Sins is the least To Receive unworthily yet out of a Sense of Duty or not to receive at all For on which side soever the least sin happens to be to that side the Man is to determine himself according to our second Rule It being eternally reasonable That of two Evils we should chuse the least when we cannot avoid both Now putting the Case before us upon this Issue there needs no more to be done for the resolving it than only to ask this general Question Which is the greater sin of these two for a Man to omit a known Duty and so to break a known Law of God for Conscience sake Or to yield Obedience to that Law for Conscience sake when yet it so happens that a Man cannot do that without breaking another Law of God in the manner of his Performance of that Duty For my part I should think that the Man who doth this last though he cannot be said to be Innocent yet is he guilty in a far less degree than the Man that practiseth the former and a great deal more is to be said in his justification Let us
suppose two Men both of them conscious to themselves that as things stand with them they are not in a fit condition so much as to say their Prayers or to perform any other act of Religious Worship as they ought to do Now one of these Men doth upon this account forbear all Prayers both Publick and Private neither using his Closet nor frequenting the Church The other hath such a Sense of what both Natural Religion and Christianity do oblige him to in this matter that he dares not forbear his usual Offices either in Publick or Private though yet he believes he sinfully performs them If the Question now be put which of these two is the better Man or the least Offender I dare say that all men will give their Judgment in favour of the latter though yet no Wise man will think that this Person is to be excused for living at such a rate that he cannot say his Prayers without Sin. This Judgment I say men would pass in this Case and there is a great deal of Reason for it For certainly no indisposition that a man hath contracted of what nature soever will take off from his Obligation to obey the Laws of God. If a man cannot do his Duty so well as he ought he must at least do it as well as he can And therefore let his Circumstances be what they will he must needs be less Criminal in performing a known Duty in the best manner that his Condition will allow him though with many and deserved Reflections upon his own Unworthiness than in wholly omitting or disusing that Duty Because a neglect in the manner of performing a Duty is a less fault than to neglect the Substance of it Let this now that I have said be applyed to our Case and we have an easie resolution of the Question before us viz. That since a greater sin is to be avoided before a less when a man supposes himself to be under a necessity of being guilty of one it is more reasonable that the man we speak of should come to the Sacrament with all his Doubts concerning his unworthiness than that he should customarily and habitually withdraw himself from it because it is a greater sin to do this latter than the former Well but some say How can this consist with St. Paul's Doctrine Who expresly affirms 1 Cor. 11.29 That whoever eateth and drinketh unworthily eateth and drinketh Damnation to himself Can there be any more dreadful sin than that which if a man be guilty of it will actually Damn him Certainly one would think by this that a man runs a much less hazard in not Receiving at all than in venturing to Receive whilst he hath the least Doubt that he Receives unworthily considering the dreadful Consequences of it But to this I briefly answer Such a man as we all along suppose in our Case is in no danger at all of Receiving unworthily in the Sense that St. Paul useth this Term. For the unworthy receiving that he so severely Censures in the Corinthians was their approaching to the Lords Table with so little a sense of what they were about that they made no distinction between the Lords Body and common Food Ibid. v. 29. v. 20 21 22. But under a pretence of meeting for the Celebration of the Lords Supper they used the Church of God as if it was an Eating or Tipling House Some of them Revelling it there to that degree that they went away Drunk from these Religious Assemblies All this appears from the Text. But I hope none among us especially none of those who are so doubtful about their being duly qualified do profane the Sacrament in this manner But further Perhaps the Damnation which St. Paul here denounces is not so frightful as is commonly apprehended For all that he saith if either the Original or the Margin of our English Bibles be consulted will appear to be this He that eateth and drinketh unworthily eateth and drinketh Judgment to himself Meaning hereby in all probability that he who doth thus affront our Lords Institution by making no distinction between the Bread of the Sacrament and common Meat doth by this his profaneness draw severe Judgments of God upon himself For for this cause saith he many are weak and sickly among you Ver. 30. and many are fallen asleep But here is not a word of Everlasting Damnation much less of any mans being put into that State by thus receiving unworthily Unless any man will say that all those who are visited with Gods Judgments in this World are in the State of Damnation as to the next Which is so far from being true that St. Paul in this very place affirms the contrary viz. in the 32. Verse where he tells us That When we are thus judged in this World we are chastened of the Lord that we should not be condemned with the World i. e. with Wicked men in another Life But further Admitting St. Paul in these words to mean Damnation in the usual Sense yet still the utmost they can come to will be no more than this That whosoever eateth and drinketh thus unworthily as the Corinthians did is guilty of a Damnable sin But now there are a great many other Cases besides this of the Sacrament in which a Man is equally guilty of a Damnable Sin if he do not perform his Duty as he ought to do He that Prays or Hears unworthily He that Fasts or gives Alms unworthily In a word He that in any Instance performs the Worship of God or professeth the Christian Religion unworthily I say such a Man according to the Protestant Doctrine may be said to do these things to his own Damnation upon the same account that he is said to Eat and Drink his own Damnation that Communicates unworthily in the Sacrament though indeed not in so high a degree That is to say such a Man is guilty of a Sin that is in its own Nature Damnable and may prove actually so to him unless either by a particular or general Repentance he obtains Gods pardon for it But yet for all this there is no man will for these Reasons think it adviseable to leave off the practice of these Duties but the only Consequence he will draw from hence is that he is so much the more concerned to take care that he perform them as he ought to do But in the last place Let the sin of coming to the Sacrament unworthily be as great and as damnable as we reasonably can suppose it Yet this is that we contend for the sin of totally withdrawing from it is much greater and more damnable So that if he who partakes of it unworthily doth eat and drink Damnation to himself He that partakes not at all is so far from mending the matter that he doth much increase that Damnation The truth of this doth fully appear from what I have before spoke in General concerning the much greater sin of transgressing a known