p. 1. c. p. 57. prove it and so do's the (c) Jerubbaal or the Pleader impleaded p. 18. 27. Authour of Jerubbaal and if I shou'd proceed to particulars I might fill a Volume with (d) Concerning her Doctrin See the Opinion of the Presbyt in Corbet's Discourse §. 21. p. 43. Baxter's 5 Disp Pref p. 6. of the Independents in the Peace Offering p. 12. See also Baxter's Def. of his Cure part 1. p. 64. part 2. p. 3. Wadsworth's Separ yet no Schism p. 60 62. Throughton's Apology c. 3. p. 106. and of the Brownists in their Apol. p. 7. Anno 1604. See also Bayly's Dissuasive c. 2. p. 20 33. Stillingfleet's Unreasonableness of Separ part 1. §. 9. p. 31. for Opinions concerning her Worship See Hildersham's Lect. 26. on Joh. p. 121. Contin of Morn Exercise Serm. 4. p. 91. Throughton's Apology p. 104. Peace Offering p. 17. for Opinions concerning the Truth sufficiency and ability of her Ministry See Bradshaw's Unreasonableness of Separ p. 16 27 37. Grave and Mod. Confut. p. 28. Apologet. Narrat p. 6. Cotton's Infant Baptism p. 181. for the defence of the Ordination of our Ministry See Jus Divi. Minist Evangel part 2. p. 12 16 17 25 c. Jus Div. regim Eccles p. 264 c. Cawdry's Independency a great Schism p. 116. and his defence of it p. 35 37. Testimonies 'T is true they own her to be a true Church upon different Grounds because some of the Dissenting Writers are for a National and others for a Congregational Church but they (e) Jus div Min. Evangel p. 12 c. Brinsly's Church-Remedy p. 41 42. Cawdry's Independency a great Schism p. 60 89 132 172. Tombes's Theodulia §. 15 16. pref c. 9. §. 3. Crofton's Reformation not Separation p. 10. and Bethshemesh Clouded p. 101 c. Church Refor p. 42. Corbet's account of the Principles c p. 26. Throughton's Apology p. 103. Baxter's defence of his Cure part 2. p. 178. Cotton's way clear'd p. 8. his Letter p. 3. Hooker's Survey pref part 1. p. 47. Goodwin on the Ephes p. 447 448 449. all agree in this that the Church of England is a true Church tho' they say she is a corrupted one Nay our (f) Grave and Mod. Confut. p. 6. Goodwin's Sion Coll. visited Bradshaw's Unreasonableness of the Separation p. 97. Brethren do not only grant her to be a true Church but also declare her to be one of the most valuable if not the very best in the world But I shall say no more of this matter only I refer the Reader to Mr. Baxter's Cure of Ch. divis dir 56. p. 263. That the Establish'd Church is also a sound as well as a true part of the Catholic Church might easily appear by an examination of it but I shall not enter upon so large a work because it is not necessary for I conceive that our Dissenters will be not only willing but forward to acknowledge it when I shall have answer'd those objections which they are pleas'd to make against our Communion and shewn that those Pleas which they raise from them are by no means sufficient to make Separation lawful I proceed therefore to the several Pleas and design to examine them in their natural order CHAP. II. The use of indifferent things in the Worship of God no objection against our Communion THE First Objection against our Communion is drawn from the use of indifferent things Our Adversaries say that indifferent things may not lawfully be us'd in the worship of God and that our Communion is therefore unlawful because we require men to use such indifferent things Now that this objection may be fully answer'd I shall do four things viz. First I shall shew what is meant by indifferent things Secondly I shall shew that indifferent things may be lawfully us'd in divine Worship Thirdly I shall consider how we may know what things are indifferent in the worship of God Fourthly I shall shew how we are to determine our selves in the use of indifferent things with respect to the worship of God I. Then I shall shew what is meant by indifferent things All actions are either duties or sins or indifferent that is such as are neither duties nor sins Duties or sins are so either in their own nature or by Divine Law That which is commanded is a duty that which is forbidden is a sin but that which is neither commanded nor forbidden is indifferent because 't is neither duty nor sin and we may either chuse or refuse it without sin For where no law is there is no transgression Rom. 4.15 Duty is duty because 't is commanded and sin is sin because 't is forbidden and indifferent is indifferent because 't is neither commanded nor forbidden So that we may as well know by the silence of the Law what is indifferent as we may know by its Authority what is a duty or a sin For where there is no Law for or against the matter is indifferent As for instance suppose there should be a dispute concerning daies set apart for the service of God how must this be determin'd but by the Law of Nature or Revelation Now if neither the Law of Nature nor the Law of Revelation say any thing of the observation of such daies then we are at liberty to observe or not to observe them II. Indifferent things may be us'd in the Divine worship as appears 1. From the consideration of the Gospel-rules of worship which except what relate to the two Sacraments are taken from the Nature of the thing and were the same in all Ages viz. such as respect Order Decency and Edification 1 Cor. 14.26 40. So that we are no otherwise bound than all the world ever was and therefore since others have always determin'd the outward circumstances of worship we have also the same liberty The Rules themselves are general and the Apostles rarely descend to particulars but whenever they do they shew how far Custom Charity and the reason of the thing ought to govern us as in the case of a Man's being uncover'd in God's worship 1 Cor. 11.4 7. for they thought it impossible or not worth their while to tie all Nations to the same Modes since God may be honour'd by one as well as the other If it be said that when things are determin'd in general the particulars are therein Virtually determin'd and so are not indifferent I answer that then nothing is indifferent since there are general rules about every thing As for example all Meats are now lawful to Christians but yet there are general rules by which we are determin'd in the use of them such as our own constitution c. but those rules do not make the Meats to be other than indifferent So there are general rules for God's worship but yet the particulars are indifferent and prudence is to regulate them The general rules of Order Decency and Edification depend upon variable
which he may judge of what sort the action is This Measure is the Rule of Conscience and Conscience is no farther safe than as it follows that Rule Now this Measure or Rule of Conscience can be nothing else but the Law of God because nothing can be a Duty or Sin but what is commanded or forbidden by God's Law and that thing only is indifferent which his Law neither commands nor forbids Now by the Law of God which is the Rule of Conscience I mean God's Will for the Goverment of Men's actions whether declar'd by Nature or Revelation By the Law of Nature I mean those Principles of Good and Evil just and unjust which God has written in our minds and which every Man is naturally convinced of Some things are eternally Good as to Worship God c. and we know them to be our Duty others are eternally Evil and we know them to be Sins by the light of Reason and the Apostle saies the Gentiles had this Law written in their hearts But Christians have the Law of Revelation too contain'd in the Scriptures by which God do's not make void the Law of Nature but declare it's Precepts more certainly and accurately with greater strength and greater rewards and punishments than before By this also he has perfected the Law of Nature and obliged us to higher instances of Vertue and added some positive Laws as for instance to believe in Christ to pray to God in Christ's Name to be Baptiz'd and partake of the Lord's Supper Thus then the Natural and Reveal'd Law of God is the great Rule of Conscience Only we must remember that by the Law of Nature is to be understood not only the chief and general heads of it but also the necessary deductions from these heads and by the Reveal'd Law is to be understood not only express Commands and Prohibitions but also the necessary consequences of those commands and prohibitions So that whatever is by direct inference or parity of reason commanded or forbidden is a Duty or a Sin tho' it be not commanded or forbidden in the Letter of the Law And if it be neither commanded nor forbidden by the Letter of the Law nor yet by inference or parity of reason the thing is indifferent and we may do it or let it alone with a safe Conscience III. In the third place I must consider the power of Human Laws to oblige the Conscience for in a secondary sence they are a part of the Rule of Conscience by vertue of and in subordination to the Laws of God This I shall explain in four propositions First It is most certain that God's Law Commands us to obey the Laws of Men. For all Society is founded in this Principal Law of Nature that we must obey our Governours in all honest and just things Otherwise no State City or Family can subsist happily And 't is most evident that God Commands us in Scripture to Obey them that have the Rule over us and to be Subject not only for Wrath but also for Conscience sake So that a Man is bound in duty to obey Human Laws and consequently they are a part of the Rule of Conscience Secondly Human Laws do not bind the Conscience by any Vertue in themselves but merely by Vertue of God's Law who has commanded us both by Nature and Scripture to obey our Superiours Conscience is our judgment of our actions according to God's Law and has no Superiour but God alone but yet we are bound in Conscience to obey Men because therein we obey God Thirdly Human Laws do no farther bind the Conscience than as they are agreeable to the Laws of God so that when Men command any thing sinful we must not obey For God has not given any Man power to alter his Laws or impose any thing inconsistent with them Fourthly Tho' Human Laws generally speaking bind the Conscience yet I do not say that every Human Law tho' consistent with God's Law do's at all times and in all cases oblige every Man's Conscience to active obedience to it so as that he sins against God if he transgress it For then who could be innocent But First where the Public or some private Person shall suffer damage or inconvenience by our not observing the Law or Secondly where the Manner of our not obeying it argues contempt of Authority or sets an ill example there the transgression of a Human Law is sinful and not in other cases So that there are many cases in which a Man may transgress a purely Human Law and yet not be a sinner before God provided I say there be no contempt of Authority or ill example in it for either of these makes it a sin For this I insist upon that God's Law and the public good require that Authority be held sacred and therefore when Governours insist upon a thing tho' it be trifling or inconvenient yet we must not even seem to contest the matter with them provided it be not sinful For to affront their Authority or to encourage others by our example to do it is a greater evil to the public than our obedience to an inconvenient Law can easily be IV. I shall now consider the power of Human Laws to oblige the Conscience in the instance of Church-Communion And here I affirm That every Man is bound in Conscience to join with the Church establish'd by Law in the place where he lives so long as that Church is a true sound part of the Catholic Church and nothing sinful is requir'd as a condition of Communion with it For I have already shewn that Men are bound to obey Human Laws that are not contrary to the Laws of God and therefore they must obey in Church-Matters unless it can be shew'd that God has forbidden Men to make Laws about Religion which can never be done But farther I earnestly desire it may be well consider'd by Dissenters that we are all really bound by the Laws of Jesus Christ and the Nature of his Religion to preserve as much as in us lies the Unity of the Church which consists not only in professing the same faith but joining together in the same worship And therefore whoever breaks this Unity doth really transgress the Laws of Jesus Christ and is guilty of Schism which is so much caution'd against and so highly condemn'd in Scripture Those therefore who think they are no more bound to come to Church than to obey any common Act of Parliament are greatly mistaken because they break not only the Law of Man but the Law of God For tho' all the circumstances of Worship are Human Institutions yet the Public Worship it self under Public Lawful Governours is of Divine appointment and no Man can renounce it without sinning against Christ as well as Human Laws A Divine Law cloath'd with circumstances of Man's appointment creates another kind of obligation than a Law that commands a thing perfectly indifferent In the former case we must obey because 't is
God's own Law in the other we only obey Man because God has obliged us in general to obey our Superiours God commands every Subject to pay tribute to whom tribute is due but Human Authority determines out of what goods and in what proportion he must pay Now because Human Authority interposes if a Man can by fraud detain the King 's right do's he incur no other guilt than breaking an Act of Parliament and being liable to penalties if he be detected Yes certainly for Tribute being injoin'd by God's Law the Man is unjust and breaks God's Law and his willingness to suffer the penalties do's not lessen his guilt The Case is the same as to Church-Vnity for tho' Human Laws prescribe particular circumstances and Forms of Worship yet God's Laws oblige us to keep the Unity of the Church as much as to pay the King his due And that Man that paies his just debts by such a method as the Law of the Land declares to be unjust may as well acquit himself from knavery before God as that Man that chuses a way of public worship in opposition to the Church-Laws can acquit himself of Schism before God Nay separation from the Church is so much against the Law of God that shou'd Human Laws grant a Toleration and call no Man to an account for separation from the establish'd Church yet such a separation wou'd still be a Schism and a Sin against God For no Human Law can make that Lawful which God's Law has forbidden V. It remains that I speak of the Authority of Conscience or how far a Man is obliged to be guided by his Conscience in his actions that is how far we are obliged to act or not act when we are convinc'd in our judgment that the action is commanded or forbidden by God Now our judgment concerning what God has commanded or forbidden or left indifferent is either right or wrong If right we are said to have a right Conscience if wrong we have an erroneous Conscience There is also a doubting Conscience when we know not well how to make any judgment at all but of this I shall Treat in another place Now if our Conscience or judgment be right that is according to God's Law without doubt we are forever bound to act according to it nor can we sin in doing so whatever the consequence be But the great question is what we must do when our Conscience is erroneous and mistaken and to answer this I lay down three Rules which I think may give any Man satisfaction First Where a Man is mistaken in his judgment even in that case it is alwaies a sin to act against it Tho' we take a sin for a duty or a duty for a sin yet so long as we are thus persuaded it will be a great crime to act against this persuasion Because by so doing we act against the best light we have at present and therefore our will is as wicked as if it acted against a true light Nothing but Conscience can guide our actions and tho' an eroneous Conscience is a very bad and unsafe guide yet still 't is the only guide we have and if we may lawfully refuse to be guided by it in one instance we may with as much reason reject it's guidance in all What is a wilful sin or a sin against knowledge but acting otherwise than we were convinc'd to be our duty Is not that Man thought sincere that acts as he believes and that Man an hypocrite that acts otherwise whether his judgment be true or false He who being under a mistake acts contrary to his judgment wou'd certainly upon the same temptation act contrary to it were his judgment never so well inform'd And therefore his Will being as bad in the one case as in the other he is equally a sinner as to the Wilfulness of the Crime tho' indeed in other respects there will be a great difference in the cases Shou'd a Jew turn Christian or a Papist turn Protestant while yet they believe their former Religions to be true we shou'd all believe them to be great Villains and Hypocrites because they did it upon base principles and in contradiction to their judgments Nay we shou'd all think more favourably of a Protestant that being seduced by a cunning Papist did really out of Conscience go over to the Romanists than of such Persons All this put together shews that no Man can in any case act against his judgment but he is guilty of sin in so doing Secondly The mistake of a Man's judgment may be of such a nature that as it will be a sin to act against his judgment so it will likewise be a sin to act according to it For that action is good and a duty which God has commanded and that is a sin which he has forbidden 'T is not our Opinion but his Law that makes things good or evil And therefore we shall be forever obliged to do some actions and forbear others whatever our judgment be because we cannot alter the Nature of things For if the Moral goodness or badness of actions were to be measur'd by Mens opinions then duty and sin wou'd be the most uncertain things in the world and what is good or evil to day wou'd be the contrary to morrow as any Man's opinion alters But such consequences are intolerable and therefore tho' a Man do's follow his judgment yet he may be guilty of sin and be damn'd for it too if his judgment lead him to act against the Law of God But it must be observ'd that I do not say that every action according to a mistaken judgment is sinful but that a Man's mistake may be such that it will be a sin to act either against it or according to it For a Man may often mistake and yet not sin provided his mistakes do not lead him to a breach of God's Law For First if a Man believe a thing to be commanded by God which is neither commanded nor forbidden as if he think himself obliged to Pray seven or three times a day he is certainly mistaken because God has bound him up to neither And therefore since God has not commanded the contrary he may safely act according to his mistake nay so long as his mistake continues he is bound to do so Secondly If a Man believe a thing to be forbidden by God which is neither commanded nor forbidden as if he think that God has forbidden him to play at Cards in this case he may follow his false opinion without sin nay he is bound to follow it Because since God has not forbidden it 't is no sin to follow his mistaken Conscience but it is a sin to act against it But then in other cases when a Man thinks that to be sinful or indifferent which God commands or that to be Lawful or a Duty which God forbids here the mistake is dangerous and it is a sin to act against his judgment or
according to it Thirdly therefore for the untying this great difficulty I say That the great thing to be attended to in this case of a Man's following a Mistaken Judgment is the faultiness or innocence of the mistake upon which he acts for according as this is so will his guilt in acting according to it be either greater or less or none at all If the mistake be such as an honest minded Man might make if he did his best to understand his duty and wanted means to know it better then we think him innocent and not properly guilty of any sin tho' the action is contrary to God's Law For no Man is obliged to do more than what is in his power to do and whatever a Man is not obliged to do it is no sin in him if he do it not Since he cou'd not understand better his mistake and acting according to his mistake are not sinful The only point is this whether the Man be to be blam'd for his erroneous Conscience or no. If the errour be not his own fault he doth not sin in acting according to it but if he had power and opportunities of informing his Conscience better and yet neglected so to do tho' it was his duty then the Man sins while he acts contrary to God's Law under the mistake and his sin is greater or less in proportion to his negligence Thus you see that God enables all Men to do their duty and that none lie under a necessity of sinning but those who wilfully embracing false Principles fall into sin whether they act according to their Conscience or against it Having now done with the Five Principles of my Discourse I proceed to my first intended business that is to speak to the Case of those that separate from the Communion of the Church of England upon this pretence That it is against their Conscience to join with us in it And that I may clear this point I shall do two things First I shall separate those who can plead Conscience for their Non-Conformity from those that cannot for a great many that pretend Conscience refuse Communion with us upon another Principle Secondly I shall enquire how far this Plea of Conscience when truly made will justify any Dissenter that continues in separation from the Church First then that I may Distinguish the true Pretenders to Conscience from the false ones I shall lay down this proposition that no Man can justly plead Conscience for his separation from the Church of England or say that it is against his Conscience to join in Communion with it unless he is persuaded that he cannot Communicate with us without sinning against God in so doing For God's Law is the only Rule to judge whether an action be a Duty or a Sin or indifferent and Conscience is nothing else but a Man's judgment of an action whether it be a Duty or a Sin or indifferent by that Rule So that a Man cannot be bound in Conscience to do or forbear any action unless he is persuaded that God's Law has commanded or forbidden it and therefore no Man can justly plead Conscience for Non-Conformity unless he is persuaded that God's Law has forbidden him to join with us If it be said that a Man who do's not think our Communion directly sinful may notwithstanding think it his duty to join constantly with others for his greater Edification or the like cause I answer that my proposition still holds because he thinks that he is bound by God's Law to join with others which Law he must not break by leaving them to join with us Again If it be said that a Man who do's not think our Communion unlawful but only doubts of the lawfulness of it may justly plead Conscience for Non-Conformity so long as his doubts remain I answer that if he thinks it a sin to do any thing with a doubting Conscience then he thinks that our Communion is forbidden by God so long as his doubts remain but if he do's not think it a sin to act with a doubting Conscience then it cannot go against his Conscience to join with us So that my proposition remains true that none can justly plead Conscience for Non-Conformity but those who think that they cannot join with us without sin Now since this proposition is so certainly true how many Men's pretences to Conscience for their separating from us are hereby cut off For First those that separate either because they have been disobliged by some Church-Man or to please a Relation or increase their Fortunes or procure or regain a Reputation or for any other worldly consideration cannot plead Conscience for separation Nor Secondly can those Lay-People who are resolv'd to hear their beloved Teachers in Conventicles since they cannot hear them in our Churches and who wou'd join with us if we wou'd suffer those Godly Men to Preach nor Thirdly those who dislike Forms of Prayer Ceremonies c. thinking them not convenient tho' they do not judge them to be sinful nor Fourthly those who separate upon the account of Edification or acquaintance with Persons of another persuasion or because many Godly Persons condemn our way all these I say cannot justly plead Conscience for their separation Because neither fancy nor example can be the Rule of any Man's Conscience but only the Law of God and therefore such Persons cannot justly plead Conscience because they do not think our Communion to be forbidden by God's Law Nor Fifthly can those plead Conscience for their separation who think that our Governours have encroach'd too much upon Christian Liberty and laid too much stress upon indifferent things for suppose the Governour 's be faulty in it yet the Conscience of the Subject is not concern'd so long as the things commanded do not interfere with any Law of God Nor Sixthly can those justly plead Conscience for their separation who can join with us sometimes both in Prayer and the Lord's Supper for if our Communion be sinful with what Conscience do they dare to join in it at all and if it be lawful once it is a duty alwaies But leaving these false pretenders I proceed to the case of those that can justly plead Conscience for their separation or who think it a sin to join with us for I shall consider the case of those that plead a doubting Conscience afterwards in a particular discourse Secondly therefore I shall inquire how far this Plea of Conscience when truly made will justify any Dissenter that continues in separation from the Church For there are many that say they wou'd join with us with all their hearts but they are really persuaded they cannot do it without sin For they think that it is against the command of Christ to use Forms of Prayer the Cross in Baptism kneeling at the Sacrament and the like And surely say they you wou'd not have us join in these practices which we verily believe to be sins They are so well satisfy'd in
First then they say if the Superiour must determine in every doubtful case the inferiour must often commit most grievous sins As for instance if a Man doubt whether Jehovah or Baal be the true God and the Ruler command that Baal shou'd be worshipp'd the Man must renounce the true God But this is no argument against us for I have already said that neither doubtfulness nor ignorance will excuse an action that is plainly sinful tho' it be done in obedience to Authority and I only assert that the Superiour is to over-rule when we doubt equally whether an action be lawful or no and have done our best to satisfy our selves Nay this argument concludes as strongly against them as against us For if a Man doubt whether Jehovah or Baal be the true God and the Ruler command that Jehovah only should be worshipp'd what advice wou'd they give the doubting Man If they say he must obey the Ruler they give up the cause and if he must not obey the Ruler he must worship Baal and so be guilty of Idolatry Secondly They say that God has commanded us to obey our Superiours not in all things but in those things only which are not contrary to his Law So that when we are uncertain whether the command be lawful we are also uncertain whether we are bound to obey and therefore it is no more our duty to obey than to disobey But I answer that I have already given many weighty reasons why we should rather obey than disobey when we equally doubt whether the command be lawful or no. But Thirdly the principal argument is drawn from St. Paul's words He that doubteth is damn'd if he eat because he eateth not of faith for whatsoever is not of faith is sin Rom. 14.23 From whence they argue that if it was a sin to eat any food tho' 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 doubt of the lawfulness of it and if so the Ruler's command will not make it lawful to do it This is the great argument and I shall give it a full answer only I think it needful to premise a general account of the Text it self before I take of the objection that is drawn from it Now St. Paul discourses in this Chapter of the case of those Jewish Christians who were persuaded or at least thought it most probable that they were bound to keep Moses's Laws concerning the observation of daies and difference of meats whereas other Christians who were better instructed made no scruple of eating any kind of food tho' forbidden by the Law of Moses If it be said that the second verse intimates their total abstinence from flesh and eating only herbs which Moses's Law did not oblige them to I answer with some Fathers that they thinking the Law still in force chose to eat only herbs that their way of living might pass rather for a Religious abstinence than a legal observance and so the other Christians might not reproach them for keeping the Law As for the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which we translate he that doubteth it do's as properly signify he that maketh a difference and it is so us'd both in Scripture and other Writers And therefore the Text is thus to be rendred he that maketh a difference between meats is damn'd or condemn'd if he eat any thing which he judgeth to be unclean because he eateth not of faith This rendring is put in the Margin of our Bibles and is approv'd by most Latin Expositors The word faith also in this and the foregoing verse do's not signify in the large sence a belief of the Christian Religion but only a Man's assent to the lawfulness of any particular action that he takes in hand So that to have faith about an action is to be persuaded that it is lawful and to do an action not of faith is to do that which we have reason to think is unlawful And whereas St. Paul saith he is damn'd if he eat we must observe that he do's not mean damnation in hell but the condemnation of his own Conscience so that the sense is this He that maketh a difference between meats and yet eateth is condemn'd for it in his own Conscience because he do's that which he apprehends to be sinful That Man will soon be satisfy'd of the truth of this interpretation who considers that St. Paul had been persuading the stronger Christians who thought it lawful to eat any sort of food not to give scandal to the weak Christians who thought otherwise And he thus concludes his advice Hast thou faith art thou satisfy'd that it is lawful to eat any sort of food have it to thy self before God enjoy thy persuasion but do not upon every occasion make use of it least thy weak Brother be embolden'd by thy example to do that which he thinks to be unlawful 'T is true happy is he that condemneth not himself in that which he alloweth happy is he that do's not do what he thinks to be unlawful but he that doubteth that maketh a difference between meats is damn'd or condemn'd in his Conscience if he eat what he thinks it is not lawful to eat because he eateth not of faith and is not satisfy'd that it is lawful to eat it and whatsoever is not of faith whatsoever a Man thinks unlawful is sin to him that thinks it so Having thus given an account of the Text it self I am now to consider the objection which is drawn from it and which as I have already said is this If it was a sin to eat any food tho' in it self lawful so long as a Man 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 doubt of the lawfulness of it But I answer that this Text is nothing to the purpose for St. Paul here speaks not of a Doubting Conscience but of a Resolv'd Conscience only For the Persons he speaks of were not wavering in their minds but were persuaded that those meats were unclean because they thought the Law of Moses still in force This is clear from the 2 5 and 14 verses of this Chapter I know saith St. Paul and am persuaded ' that there is nothing unclean of it self but to him that esteemeth any thing to be unclean to him it is unclean If it be said that the word doubteth is us'd and that to doubt of the unlawfulness of an action is quite another thing than to be persuaded of it I answer that the word may as properly be rendred he that maketh a difference between meats as he that doubteth But tho' the word doubteth be retain'd yet it is undeniably plain that St. Paul speaks of a doubt strengthen'd with so many probabilities that it wanted but very little of a persuasion or
rather it was a persuasion with some mixture of doubtfulness If the Man was not fully persuaded that it was a sin to eat yet he thought it much more probable that it was a sin than that it was not For he cou'd not be condemn'd of his own Conscience for eating if he did not think his eating to be unlawful and were not in some degree persuaded of it Well but the Apostle says v. 5. One man esteemeth one day above another another man esteemeth every day alike let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind From whence 't is plain that a Man must be persuaded that the action is lawful else he doth not act with a safe Conscience And is not that the very same thing that is here said He that doubteth is condemn'd if he eat because he eateth not of faith or with a full persuasion The Apostle therefore by the former Text directs us to interpret this latter in the proper sence of doubting But I answer that St. Paul did not oblige them to get full persuasions in their several waies for there was too much of that already amongst them and 't was nothing to his purpose to tell them that if they acted without a full persuasion of the lawfulness of the action they sinn'd against Conscience but his design was to persuade them quietly to permit each other to enjoy their several persuasions in those little matters without censuring one another So that the words must be rendred Let every one be fill'd with his own mind or satisfy'd with his own persuasion This indeed differs from our English Translation but Grotius and the Vulgar Latin as well as St. Chrysostom and Theodoret do thus interpret it and moreover the matter requires it For otherwise the precept is neither reasonable nor possible since if there appears reason of doubting it is in vain to command a man not to doubt Nay it is then as much his duty to doubt as in other cases to believe Thus then it appears that these words he that doubteth is damn'd if he eat do not overthrow my assertion But tho' this is a true and substantial answer to the argument yet I shall give another which unties the difficulty upon the Dissenters own Principles Supposing therefore what is utterly false that St. Paul speaks of a really doubting Person and not of one that is persuaded and that the Man did sin in eating those meats of the lawfulness of which he doubted yet it do's not follow that a Man sins in obeying Authority where he doubts of the lawfulness of the command For there is a vast disparity in the Cases since the Man St. Paul speaks of was at Liberty to forbear eating and sinn'd in chusing to run a needless hazard of transgressing God's Law but when the Superiour commands a Man is not at Liberty In the former case the Man might forbear without any danger but in the latter case there is greater danger in forbearing than in acting and therefore he is Bound to act in the latter case tho' it might be sin to act in the former But further the reason why he that eateth doubtingly sins in so doing is this because he eateth not of faith and therefore St. Paul do's not say it is alwaies sinful to act in a doubtful case because there are some doubtful cases wherein a Man may act with faith notwithstanding his doubt For he that is satisfy'd that he acts according to his duty in the present circumstances do's act with faith and therefore when a Man is satisfy'd that it is more reasonable all things consider'd to do an action than to forbear it and that it wou'd be sinful in his circumstances to act otherwise that Man do's not sin in acting tho' he act with some kind of doubt because he acts in faith being satisfy'd that he acts according to his duty in his present circumstances Thus then 't is plain that to obey authority in a purely doubtful case is not sinful because a Man may soon be satisfy'd that it is not only more reasonable but his duty so to do If it be said that a Man cannot have faith that is be satisfy'd about an action and yet doubt of it at the same time I answer that the case often happens A Man has often very great doubts about the lawfulness of an action in general and yet may be satisfy'd that considering the circumstances he is in it may be lawfully done All doubting is not contrary to faith It is sufficient if the doubts be over-ballanc'd Tho' a Man's doubts be hard and troublesome yet if he is persuaded that all things consider'd it is more advisable to do the action than to forbear it he has faith enough to act with a safe Conscience Because he acts according to his best judgment and more than this a Man cannot do IV. I am now to speak in the Fourth and last place of the authority of a doubting Conscience and to inquire whether at all or how far a Man is obliged by it I say therefore in general that a doubting Conscience do's not oblige at all For a doubting Conscience is the suspence of a Man's judgment about a particular action he doubts whether he be bound to do it or forbear it Now to suppose that a Man thinks himself bound in Conscience while he is disputing whether he is bound or no is to suppose a contradiction A Man cannot be bound in Conscience to do or forbear any action but as he thinks that God's Law has commanded or forbidden it and therefore he that is doubtful whether it be commanded or forbidden cannot be obliged in Conscience either way There is no particular Law of God which determines our actions one way or other in the case of a doubt and the general Laws whether natural or reveal'd can oblige us to no more than to endeavour to understand our duty as well as we can and when we are at a loss to act as reasonably as we can He that do's thus acts with a safe Conscience tho' he act doubtfully Having thus largely discuss'd the case of a doubting Conscience I think it will not be amiss to apply what has been said to the Case of our present Dissenters There are several Persons that are unsatisfy'd about the lawfulness of our Communion some upon the account of Ceremonies others of other things None of them can say that these things are unlawful for that is the case of a resolv'd Conscience with which we have nothing here to do but they are uncertain whether they be lawful or no and so long as they thus doubt they dare not join in our worship fearing they shou'd sin against God in so doing Of these Persons some have a single doubt that is they doubt whether they may lawfully join with us but they are satisfy'd they may lawfully separate from us others have a double doubt that is they doubt whether they may lawfully join with us and they doubt
to be Baptiz'd But if the Scriptures were doubtful in the case I appeal to any Man whether the harmonious practice of the ancient Churches and the undivided consent of the Apostolical Fathers be not the best interpreters of them Let any modest Person judge whether it be more likely that so many famous Saints and Martyrs so near the Apostles times shou'd conspire in the practice of Mock-Baptism and of making so many Millions of Mock-Christians or that a little Sect shou'd be in a grievous Errour The brevity which I design will not permit me to recite the Authorities of the ancients and therefore I refer the Reader to Cassander and Vossius De Baptism Disp 14. only I desire him to consider the following particulars 1. That 't is hard to imagine that God shou'd suffer his Church to fall into such a dangerous practice as our Adversaries think Infant-Baptism to be which wou'd in time Unchurch it and that even while Miracles were yet extant in the Church and he bare them witness with signs and wonders and divers gifts of the Holy Ghost And yet 't is plain that Irenaeus Tertullian Origen and Cyprian who are witnesses of Infant-Baptism in those daies do assure (b) See Irenaeus Adv. Haer. l. 2. c. 56 57. Tertull. Apol. and ad Scapul Origen adv Celsum Camb. p. 34 62 80 124 127 334 376. Cyprian ad Donat. and ad Magn. and ad Demetrian p. 202. Edit Rigalt us that Miracles were then not Extraordinary in the Church 2. If Infant-Baptism was not an Apostolical Tradition how came the (c) See Voss Hist Pelag. lib. 2. p. 2. Id. de Baptis Disp 13. Thes 18. and Disp 14. â—hes 4. Cassand Praef. ad Duc. Jul. p. 670. and Teâ—â—im vet de Bapt. parv p. 687. Pelagians not to reject it for an innovation when the Orthodox us'd it as an argument against them that Infants were guilty of Original sin But they were so far from doing this that they practis'd it themselves and own'd it as necessary for Childrens obtaining the Kingdom of Heaven tho' they deny'd that they were Baptiz'd for the remission of Original sin 3. If Infant-baptism be not an Apostolical Tradition how came all Churches (d) See Brerewood's Enquir c. 20.23 Cassand Expos de Auctor Consult Bapt Inf. p. 692. Osor l. 3. de Rebus gest Eman. cit a Voss Disp 14. de Bapt. whatsoever tho' they held no correspondence but were original plantations of the Apostles to practise it One may easily imagine that God might suffer all Churches to fall into the harmless practice of Infant-Communion or that the Fathers of the Church might comply with the Religious fondness of the People in bringing their Children to the Lord's Supper as we do with bringing them to Prayers but that God shou'd let them all not preserving one for a Monument of Apostolical Purity fall into a practice which destroys the being of the Church is a thousand times more incredible than that the Apostles without a prohibition from Christ to the contrary shou'd Baptize Infants according to the practice of the Jewish Church 4. Wou'd not the Jewish Christians who were offended at the neglect of Circumcision have been much more offended if the Apostles had excluded their Children from Baptism as the Children of Unbelievers and refus'd to Initiate them under the New Testament as they had alwaies been under the Old Wherefore since among their many complaints upon the alteration of the Jewish Customs we never read that they complain'd of their Childrens being excluded from Baptism we may better argue that the Apostles Baptiz'd their Children than we may conclude from the want of an express example of Infant-Baptism that they did not Baptize them III. I am to prove that 't is unlawful to separate from a Church which appoints Infant-Baptism Now it appears from what I have already said that Infant-Baptism is a lawful thing and therefore 't is a sin to separate from that Church which commands it because the Church has authority to Ordain that which may be done without sin But farther Infant-Baptism is not only lawful but highly requisite also For purgation by Water and the Spirit seem equally necessary because Except a Man be born again of Water and of the Spirit he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God John 3.5 And 't is reasonable to think that Children are capable of entring into Covenant because they are declar'd capable of the Kingdom of God Mark 10.14 Nay we may justly conclude that Children were Baptiz'd upon the Conversion of their Parents after the Custom of the Jewish Church because the Apostles Baptiz'd whole housholds Acts 16.15 33. 1 Cor. 1.16 For 't is probable that the federal holiness of Believers Children makes them candidates for Baptism and gives them a right to it because the Children of Believers are call'd Holy 1 Cor. 7.14 To which I may add other Texts Psal 5.5 Rom. 3.23 24. Joh. 3.5 6. 2 Cor. 15.21 22. and 5.14 15. which have been alledg'd by the ancients both before and after the Pelagian Controversy to prove the Baptism of Infants necessary to wash away their original sin which makes them obnoxious to eternal death See Voss Hist Pelag. p. 1. Thes 6. p. 2. l. 2. I say it may be fairly concluded from these Texts that Infant-Baptism is requisite but then these Texts in conjunction with the practice of the ancient Church do demonstrate that 't is requisite because the Church in the next Age to the Apostles practis'd Infant-Baptism as an Apostolical tradition and by consequence as an institution of Christ I do not say that Baptism is indispensably necessary to the Salvation of Infants so that a Child dying unbaptiz'd thro' the carelesness or superstition of the Parents or thro' their mistaken belief of the unlawfulness of Infant-Baptism is infallibly damn'd but I affirm that Infant-Baptism is in any wise to be retain'd in the Church as being most agreeable to the Scripture and the Apostolical practice and the institution of Christ And if Baptism be not only lawful but so highly requisite as it appears to be then certainly 't is unlawful to separate from that Church which injoins it IV. In the next place I shall shew that 't is the duty of Christian Parents to bring their Children to Baptism and in doing this I must proceed as I did in the foregoing particular Since Infants are not uncapable of Baptism nor excluded from it by Christ nay since there are good reasons to presume that Christ at least allow'd them Baptism as well as grown persons therefore the command of the Church makes it the People's duty to bring their Children to Baptism because 't is lawful so to do But farther Infant-Baptism is highly expedient also For 1. it is very beneficial to the Infants who are thereby solemnly consecrated to God and made members of Christ's Mystical Body the Church Besides they being by Nature Children of Wrath are by Baptism made the Children
this is not the least that God's public Worship is perform'd among us with so little Reverence and Devotion as it is But I will transcribe no more only I shall earnestly desire two things First that you wou'd consider seriously how you wou'd have lik'd what I have transcrib'd from Mr. Hildersham if one of our Men had Preach'd it especially if he added that for the Reverence of God's public Worship care shou'd be taken that the place where the Congregation Assembleth may be decent and comely and that 't is a foul sin and contempt of God's house to be careless about the Neatness of it If you wou'd have thought it unprofitable then consider why such things as please out of one Man's mouth shou'd displease out of another's Is it not manifest that partiality makes you not profit by our Sermons Or if you cou'd not like such Discourses either from Non-Conformists or our Ministers then are you not mistaken about profiting by Sermons when you think those discourses unprofitable which sober Men of all sides have thought necessary For Mr. Hildersham saies Prophaness and Atheism hath made us too void of all care in beautifying the house of God Secondly If you think such a Sermon profitable consider whether you have learnt so much out of Scripture as to study and observe those Rules Do you for instance pay Reverence to God's house and come at the beginning of Service and stand up and kneel with the Congregation c If you do not then the fault is not in our Sermons that you do not profit for you do not profit by the Scriptures themselves which plainly teach these things To conclude if we have all things necessary to the building us up in our most Holy Faith in the Communion of the Church it will be but a poor excuse for our Dividing from it that we hoped to be better Edify'd when we had no encouragement at all to hope it as long as we continu'd in the state of Separation upon this Pretence For it is the Blessing of God alone and not any Man's Skill in dispensing them that can make the word and ordinances any way beneficial to us With the help of his grace those means of Instruction which we undervalue most may be profitable to our Salvation Without it our Ears may be tickled and our Fancies pleasantly entertain'd for the time but we cannot be truly Edify'd by the most fluent and popular Tongue or the most melting and pathetical Expressions in the World CHAP. XI The pretence of it's being against one's Conscience to join with the Church of England Answer'd HAving Answer'd the most considerable Objections against our Communion I am now to deal with such Persons as separate from us tho' they have nothing to object against us such as pretend that they are not satisfy'd in our way that 't is against their Conscience to join with us or that they doubt of the lawfulness of our Communion or at least they scruple it But I shall shew that these excuses are utterly insignificant and that they cannot escape the wrath of God who commit a sin and think to cover it by pretending Conscience for it But before I enter upon these Matters I shall lay down the Principles I mean to proceed upon by treating distinctly on these Five Heads 1. Of the Nature of Conscience 2. Of the Rule of Conscience 3. Of the Power of Human Laws to oblige the Conscience And particularly 4. In the instances of Church-Communion 5. Of the Authority of Conscience or how far a Man is obliged to be guided by it in his actions I. Then to find out the Nature of Conscience let us consider what every Man doth really mean by that word when he has occasion to use it Now as to this I observe First that a Man never speaks of his Conscience but with respect to his own actions We do not for instance make it a point of Conscience whether a thing be true or false or whether an accident be prosperous or unfortunate or whether another Man has done well or ill These things indeed may please or trouble us but our Conscience is affected only with that which is willingly done or left undone by us or which we may do or may forbear Secondly We never use the Word Conscience about our actions but only so far as those actions are to be directed by some Law or Rule with which if they agree they are good and if they disagree they are evil Thirdly Our actions as we concern our Conscience in them are either already done or not already done But whether they are done or not done whether past or future they are either commanded by God and so they are Duties or forbidden by God and so they are Sins or neither commanded nor forbidden and so they are indifferent actions Our actions I say do not touch our Conscience but as they fall under these considerations and in all these respects we mean the same thing by Conscience For First If the action be not already done we think it either commanded by God and say we are bound in Conscience or think it our duty to do it or forbidden by God and say it is against our Conscience or we think it a sin to do it or else we think it is indifferent and say we may do it with a safe Conscience that is we believe the action may be done without transgressing any Law of God This is undeniably every Man's meaning when he talks of Conscience as to actions that are not yet done Secondly If we speak of our actions that are done and past saying my Conscience bears me witness or I am satisfy'd or troubled in Conscience for doing what I have done we mean nothing more than this that reflecting upon our own actions we find that we have either done as we are convinc'd we ought to do and this is a satisfaction to us or not done as we ought to do and the remembrance of this troubles us But in all these Cases we mean the same thing by Conscience to wit our Judgment and Persuasion concerning what we ought to do or ought not to do Only in the first sort Conscience is consider'd as the guide of actions to be done and in the second sort as the witness of those that are already done but in both sorts Conscience is the same thing to wit the Judgment of a Man's mind concerning the Morality of his Actions This is the true Notion of Conscience in general but if we put Epithets to it and talk of a good or evil Conscience a tender Conscience or the like then it includes more than I am now concern'd to give an account of II. I proceed to the Rule of Conscience It appears by what I have said that Conscience must alwaies have a Rule to follow For since Conscience is a Man's judgment about actions as good or bad or indifferent it is certain a Man must have some measure by applying
their separation upon these accounts that they think themselves safe and that they are able to justify themselves to God and all the world Now in answer to this I grant that if the things they except against be really forbidden by God then they are not to be blam'd for then separation from us is not a sin but a duty Nay supposing that they think that to be forbidden which is not really forbidden yet so long as they think so they cannot act against their mistaken Conscience without sin But then the point we stand upon is this that our Governours do require nothing that is forbidden by God and therefore their thinking our Communion unlawful will not acquit them from being guilty of sin before God I am not now to answer the particular objections against our establishments This has been sufficiently done already in the several foregoing Chapters The Point I am concern'd in is this whether a Man 's thinking our Communion to be unlawful when indeed it is not unlawful will justify his separation from it and I answer that a Man's false persuasion will not justify his breaking of God's Law So that if God's Law do's command me to hold Communion with the Church where I have no just cause to break it my false persuasion will not acquit me from sin before God if I separate from it without just cause Tho' the truth of this appears from what I have said before yet I shall further confirm it by asking this question When St. Paul thought himself bound in duty to persecute Christians was his persecution sinful or no Yes surely for he call's himself the greatest of sinners for that very reason And therefore a Man's thinking a thing to be a duty or lawful will not acquit him before God for doing that thing if it be against God's Law So that it infinitely concerns all Dissenters to consider well before they separate For Schism is a crying sin and as vehemently spoken against by Christ and his Apostles and the Fathers as any sin whatever Let Dissenters look to it that they be not guilty of it for their false persuasion that our Communion is unlawful will not make their separation to be no Schism This matter will appear a little more evident if we put the case in another instance wherein we are not so nearly concern'd Suppose a Papist that heartily believes Popery to be the only true Religion do's in obedience to it worship Images and the Host This person wou'd certainly abhor these practices did he think them to be Idolatrous but he believes them to be necessary duties And yet we do all charge such Papists with Idolatry tho' they disclaim it and profess they do no more than their duty when they give divine worship to such objects And we charge them rightly in this for if it be really Idolatry by God's word to do so then it will be Idolatry in any Man to do so let his opinion be what it will For a Man 's false opinion doth not alter the nature of things Now the case is the same in the matter before us for causeless separation is as properly Schism as worshipping a Creature is Idolatry and he is as much a Schismatic who thinks it his duty to separate as he is an Idolater who thinks it his duty to worship a Creature A Man's mistake according to the greater or less culpability of it will more or less excuse him before God in both instances but it cannot change the nature either of Schism or Idolatry But it will be said What shall a Man do He cannot Conform with a safe Conscience and yet he sins if he do not I answer he is to take all imaginable care to rectify his mistakes and then he may do his duty without sinning against his Conscience Now the only way of doing this is by laying aside Pride Passion Interest and all other Carnal prepossessions and endeavouring seriously and impartially to understand his duty considering without prejudice what can be said on both sides advising with the wisest Men and above all things seriously endeavouring to understand the Nature and spirit of the Christian Religion practising all undoubted duties and begging God's Assistance for the Matters in question Well but supposing a Man has done all this and after all his endeavours is persuaded that he cannot join with us without sin what shall this Man do This is the great difficulty and I have two things to say to it First We do heartily wish that this was the Case of our Dissenters for then I am persuaded our scandalous divisions wou'd presently be at an end But alas we fear they have not done their duty in this Matter that they have not heartily endeavour'd to satisfy themselves If they had surely they shou'd before they pronounc'd Conformity to be unlawful be able to produce some one plain Text to prove it so For the Texts they produce are such as had they in the least examin'd them cou'd scarce have been wrested to such a sence Nay the generality of Dissenters do not seem to have much consulted their own Teachers in this affair If they had they wou'd think better of our way than they do For the most eminent of their own Ministers are ready to declare that tho' some things may be inconvenient yet a Lay-Person may lawfully join with us in all things nay they themselves are ready upon occasion to join in all the instances of Lay-Communion In short most of our Dissenters have taken up their opinions hand over head and scarce think it possible for them to be in the wrong Shew us a Man that has no end to serve by Religion but only to go to heaven and in the choice of his way is only concern'd that it be the way that leads him thither that is wonderfully sollicitous about his duty and will refuse no pains to understand it that in the midst of Church-divisions is modest humble and docible and believes that he and his friends may be mistaken that thinks his Governours may be wiser than himself and that every opinion that he has inconsiderately taken up ought not to be maintain'd against Authority a Man that where his duty to God seems to thwart his duty to Man endeavours to be truly inform'd and to that end begs God's assistance and uses the best helps and guides he can hears and reads the arguments on both sides and is byassed neither way I say shew us such a Man and we readily grant he has done his best to satisfy himself But then we must add that we believe such a Man will soon think it not only lawful but his Duty also to Conform Secondly If a Man has really done his best to satisfy his Conscience and yet thinks it a sin to Conform tho' his separation be materially a Schism yet he is not formally guilty of it For all those that commit Schism are not equally guilty of it Those that separate to serve a turn
cases wave the safer for the more Prudent side and consequently it is not alwaies a Rule to a doubting Conscience to chuse the safer side or the side which is more free from danger of sinning But Secondly if by safer side we mean that which is freest from all dangers and inconveniences of all kinds whatsoever and do's best serve all the Spiritual and Temporal interests that a wise and good Man can propose I freely grant that it is the only Rule to a doubting Conscience to follow the safer side For then the safer side is the more reasonable side which as I said before is in all doubtful cases to be chosen 2. Having given an account of the general Rule of a doubting Conscience I come now in the Second place to make application of it to the several Heads of doubtful cases Now all doubts of Conscience are either single or double It is a single doubt when a Man doubts on one side but is satisfy'd on the other For instance he doubts whether it be Lawful to do the action but is satisfy'd he may Lawfully omit it or he doubts whether he may Lawfully omit it but is satisfy'd he may Lawfully do it It is a double doubt when a Man doubts on both sides when he is at a loss what to do because he fears he may sin whether he do's the action or do's it not First as to the case of a single doubt we may thus apply the General Rule When a Man doubts only on one side it is more reasonable if all other Considerations be equal to chuse that side which he hath no doubt of In such a case we must not do what we doubt of for it is unreasonable to run the risque of sinning when a Man can without any inconveniency avoid it If a Man doubt whether it be Lawful for a Christian to go to Law and cannot positively determine with himself whether it be Lawful or Vnlawful so to do in this and all other such-like cases the Rule is plain that while he doubts it is more reasonable to forbear because he runs a hazard in venturing upon what he doubts of but he runs no hazard in forbearing But then if there be other Considerations to over-ballance this Consideration of uncertainty it will be more reasonable to chuse that side which I did before doubt of Nay it is our Duty so to do for if I doubt I do by doubting own that I cannot tell whether the action be Lawful or Vnlawful and surely then the weight of pressing Considerations ought to turn the Ballance otherwise I cannot answer to my self or the World for the consequences that may ensue Thus if I am Guardian to an Orphan whose Estate is so entangled that a Law-suit is necessary for the clearing it I am obliged notwithstanding my doubt to secure his Right by going to Law To conclude it is not only Lawful but Advisable to do that which we doubt of if a great good may be compass'd or a great evil may be avoided by the doing of it Secondly in the case of a double doubt when a Man fears he may sin whether he do the action or do's it not it is in vain to say he must get his doubt remov'd for perhaps that may be impossible thro' want of time or good Counsel He is therefore to follow the same Rule as in other doubtful Cases that is to say he is to act as reasonably as he can and if he do this I am sure he incurs no blame But because the application of this General Rule is various according to many circumstances that may happen therefore I shall comprise all the varieties in these Four following Propositions 1. If the sin we are afraid of appear equal on both sides we must do that which we doubt the least of that is we must do that which appears more probable to be free from the danger of sin 2. If we think there is equal danger on both sides we must do that which appears to be the less sin 3. If we think the one side more probable and the other less sinful we must act according to the degree of the probability or the sin If there be much more probability on the one side than on the other and but small difference between the sins then we must act that which is more probable But then if the consequences on one side if a Man shou'd happen to be mistaken be so terrible that they over-ballance all the probabilities on the other side a wise Man will act that which sets him free from these consequences Thus if a Man be try'd for his Life and the Evidence against him be not so full as to create a persuasion in the Jury that he is Guilty in this case they shou'd rather acquit him notwithstanding some probabilities of his Guilt than run the hazard of doing Murder by condemning the innocent 4. If a Man doubts equally on both sides and the sin appear equal on both sides then his own ease or advantage or reputation or any other prudential inducements must determine him to do the action he doubts about or to let it alone 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 has he is not culpable tho' he be mistaken in his measures But to render these Rules about a double doubt more intelligible and more useful I shall give the Reader an instance of a Case in which they are all apply'd The case is this Here is a Man that thinks it his Duty to receive the Sacrament constantly or at least frequently but on the other side tho' no grievous sin lies upon his Conscience unrepented of yet by reason of his mistakes about the Nature and Ends of the Lord's Supper and the dispositions that fit a Man for it he is under great fears of his being unqualify'd for it Now the question is what this Man who after all his endeavours cannot get over these difficulties ought to do For if he do not come to the Sacrament he doubts he sins on that account if he do come he doubts he approaches unworthily and so sins upon that account Shall he receive the Sacrament doubting as he do's or shall he forbear it doubting as he do's Now a Man cannot resolve this question but by applying the foregoing Rules after this manner First since the Man doubteth that he sins whether he come to the Sacrament or forbear it must be consider'd which side appears most likely to free him from sin Now I am confident he will think it more reasonable to come meanly prepar'd than customarily to abstain because he is much more certain that 't is his duty to frequent it than that he is unprepar'd for it Indeed were he a debauch'd person or had he been lately guilty of some notorious Sin and came to the Lord's Table with that sin unrepented of he had reason to dread unworthy
receiving as much as abstaining but since the case is quite otherwise since he is mistaken while he thinks himself unworthy certainly he runs a greater danger by absenting himself than by coming with his doubts about him Because his doubts of his unworthiness being only surmises cannot possibly be so well grounded as his doubts that he sins by habitually abstaining which is expresly forbidden by God's Law Secondly Tho' it can hardly be suppos'd in our case yet let us suppose that the Man has as much reason to believe that he is an unworthy receiver if he receive at all as he has to believe that it is a sin in him if he do not receive the question then is which is the least sin to receive unworthily out of a sence of duty or not to receive at all For the least sin is to be chosen when he cannot avoid both For my part I think that a Man who obeys one known Law of God for Conscience sake when he cannot do it without breaking another law in the manner of performance I say I think that that man tho' he is not innocent yet is far less guilty than he who omits a known duty and so breaks a known Law of God for Conscience sake Suppose two Men who know themselves to be unfit so much as to say their Prayers one of these Men doth upon this account forbear all Prayers the other dares not to forbear his usual offices tho' he believes he performs them sinfully Now I dare say that all Men will think him the better Man who says his Prayers tho' both of them be very faulty Because whatever a Man's indisposition be he is oblig'd to do his duty as well as he can and it is better to perform a duty after an ill manner than wholly to omit it Since therefore the greater sin is to be avoided when a Man is under a necessity of committing one it 's more reasonable that a Man shou'd come to the Sacrament doubting of his unworthiness than that he shou'd habitually abstain from it If it be said that he that eateth and drinketh unworthily eateth and drinketh damnation to himself 1 Cor. 11.29 and that there cannot be a greater sin than that which will actually damn a Man I answer that let the sin of receiving unworthily be as damnable as we can reasonably suppose it yet the sin of totally withdrawing from it is much greater and more damnable So that if he who partakes 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 And certainly did Men seriously consider what a sin it is to live without the Sacrament and what dreadful consequences they bring upon themselves hereby they wou'd not look upon it as so slight a matter to neglect it but what apprehensions soever they had of the sin and danger of receiving unworthily they wou'd think it more sinful and more dangerous not to receive at all Thirdly Suppose the Man takes all opportunities of receiving the Sacrament tho' perhaps he is not often very well satisfy'd about his preparation but since his last receiving he finds he has liv'd more loosly than he was wont or he has been very lately guilty of some grievous sin so that he thinks himself unfit to receive at his next usual time Upon this he is in a great perplexity for he thinks he has more reason to believe he sins if he receives in these circumstances than if he forbears because he is more certain that God forbids him to receive unworthily than he is certain that God commands him to receive upon every opportunity But then if he be really bound to receive upon every opportunity 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 On one side he runs a greater danger of sinning on the other if he be mistaken he sins in a greater degree What now is the Man to do in this case I answer First It is very reasonable that he shou'd forbear receiving once or twice for his exercise of repentance and better preparation against another opportunity Because since we have no reason to think that God has commanded us to receive so many times a year any more than that we shou'd pray so many times a day we are not oblig'd by an express Law to receive upon every opportunity but there is an express law against receiving unworthily and therefore there is greater danger in doing so So that the consideration of the certain danger ought to over ballance that of the greater sin and the Man ought rather to defer his receiving than to receive in his present circumstances But Secondly a Man must not habitually absent himself upon the the account of unworthiness For I have shewn that there is more danger of sinning by not receiving at all than by receiving unworthily and there is a much greater sin in wholly withdrawing than in coming with never so great fears of being unfit And therefore he must receive frequently tho' he be in danger of doing it unworthily rather than not receive at all Fourthly if the Person think that the danger of sinning and the sin it self are equal whether he receive or no then he is to consider the inducements of Prudence and Interest and they are to turn the ballance And it is plain that it is better to receive than to forbear upon those accounts For besides the temporal advantages of receiving he reaps this Spiritual profit by it viz. that he takes the best method of growing more worthy and curing his doubts whereas by absenting himself his doubts increase and he is in great danger of losing that sense of Religion which he now has Thus have I shewn how to apply all the Rules concerning a double doubt and if I have dwelt too long upon this subject I hope the frequency and importance of the case will excuse me III. Having setled the Notion and Rule of a Doubting Conscience I come now in the Third place to speak of the power of human Laws over a Doubting Conscience And my assertion is that wherever lawful Authority has commanded an action that command is generally speaking a sufficient warrant for a Man to do that action tho' he doubts whether in it self it be lawful or no. That I may speak clearly to this point I shall 1. premise some things 2. shew the grounds of my assertion 3. answer the Objections brought against it 1. I premise Five things First That no Authority upon earth can oblige Men to do what God forbids or to forbear what God commands Secondly If a Man thinks that thing which his Governours oblige him to is sinful tho' he be mistaken he cannot obey them without sinning But then if he be mistaken he also sins in disobeying if he be mistaken thro' his own fault Thirdly
If a Man doubt whether the action injoin'd by Authority be sinful or no yet if he think it unlawful to act against his private doubt he cannot do that action without sin But then if this Notion of his be false as I shall shew it is he sins also in disobeying if he be mistaken thro' his own fault Fourthly If a Man has been so extremely careless in learning his duty that he doubts of the plainest matter in such a case a Man is highly accountable for doing that which contradicts the Law of God tho' he did it purely in obedience to that Authority which God has set over him and purely in compliance with this true principle that in doubtful cases we must be guided by our Superiours For certainly if a sinful thing be commanded not only he that commands but he that obeys also must answer for it whether he do it doubtingly or with a persuasion of it's lawfulness Only we must remember First that this is true only in such cases where the Man might have known his duty had he not been careless for if a Man be ignorant or doubtful because he wanted means or opportunities of informing himself he is not guilty of sin before God tho' he break God's Law Secondly that when this case happens the sin doth not lie in obeying his Superiours with a doubting conscience but in his doing that which he wou'd have known to be sinful if he had been so careful as he shou'd have been For obeying his Superiours whether with a doubt or without one is no part of the sin Fifthly I premise that whatever the power of Superiours be for the over-ruling a private doubt it must not destroy the truth or take away the use of the foregoing Rules in the Case of a double Doubt Because the case of obeying Superiours when we doubt of the Lawfulness of their commands is a double Doubt as properly as any other and therefore if it be two to one more probable that the command is unlawful than that it is lawful we must not obey it by the first Rule But then tho' the Authority of Superiours alone will not turn the Ballance yet there are usually such considerations of the greater sin and more dreadful consequences of disobeying as will outweigh all the probabilities on the other side and make it more reasonable to obey However if the command be lawful a man's false opinion that it is sinfiul will not excuse him unless his mistake be such as he cou'd not rectify These things being premis'd the plain question is this whether in the case of a pure doubt about the lawfulness or unlawfulness of an action where the probabilities are on both sides pretty equal and where likewise the Man concern'd has done all that he was obliged to do for the satisfying himself whether I say in this case the command of a lawful superiour do's not oblige the Man to do that of which he doubteth I affirm it do's oblige him so to do and therefore 2. I shall shew the grounds of my assertion And First Modesty obliges us to pay as much deference to the judgment of our Superiours as this comes to If a doubt shou'd arise about the lawfulness of any civil practice we shou'd without any great difficulty be determin'd by the judgment of a few Learned Prudent and honest Persons whom we think better able to judge of the case than our selves and do's it not argue much self-conceit and great contempt of our Superiours to refuse the same respect to their judgment whose business it is to consult and command for the best Secondly Bishop Sanderson and other Casuists agree that in all disputed cases he that is in possession of the thing contended for has the advantage of the other that contends with him supposing all other things be equal Thus if I am in possession of an Estate which another Claims I cannot justly be dispossessed till the other Man's Title appears to be better than mine Now in our Case the Superiour asserteth his right and commandeth the Subject questioneth his right because he doubts whether the command be not sinful but since the superiour is in possession of the Authority to command the Subject must by no means by his disobedience dispossess him of that Authority till he is convinced that he has greater reason to disobey than to obey But this is impossible because the reasons are suppos'd equal on both sides Thirdly Since in all doubtful Cases it is a common rule that the safer side is to be chosen 't is certain that 't is safer to obey than to disobey in a doubtful case For there is a plain Law of God that commands us to obey Superiours in all lawful things and if the command be unlawful the only hazard we run is of transgressing some Law of God which we did not know and which perhaps we were not bound or had not means to know but in a doubtful case it is very uncertain whether the Law of God forbid the thing or no and if the command be lawful then we run the hazard of transgressing a plain Law which we cannot but know and which is of the greatest importance to Mankind Fourthly Since in all cases we must do as we would have others do to us let us consider whether we should not think it unreasonable for our own inferiours to contradict our Rules upon pretence of doubting about their being lawful If a Parent should command his Son to sit uncover'd before him or a Master command his Servant to dress a Dinner on the Lord's-Day and either of them should refuse to do so because he is not satisfy'd that the thing is lawful would not a Parent or a Master say I am to judge what is fit for you to do and you must not think by your foolish doubts and scruples to controul my commands I dare say most Men will think this a very just reply And if so then our Superiour also is to be obey'd in purely doubtful cases notwithstanding our doubt And if we think otherwise it is because our own Liberty and Interest are concern'd and we are prejudiced in favour of our selves Fifthly If Superiours may not determine in merely doubtful cases their authority signifies nothing nor can it secure the public happiness For there is no indifferent thing but some Person or other will doubt whether it be lawful and if such a doubt be a just reason to deny obedience what will be the consequence of such a principle but perpetual confusions For instance if a Prince make War and every ignorant and unexperienced Subject may lawfully withdraw his assistance in case he doubts whether that War be lawful or no what a sad case wou'd that Kingdom be in But these consequences are intolerable and therefore the principle from whence they flow must needs be thought intolerable also 3. Having thus prov'd my assertion I come now to answer the arguments that are brought on the other side
by their curiosity about some external Observances They therefore who are so Scrupulous about little indifferent matters ought to approve their Honesty and Sincerity by the most accurate diligence in the practice of all other Duties of Religion which are plainly and undoubtedly such They who pretend to such a tender Conscience above other Men must know that the World will watch them as to the fairness and justice of their Dealings the calmness of their Tempers their Behaviour in their several Relations their Modesty Humility Charity Peaceableness and the like If in all these things they keep the same Tenor use the same caution and circumspection and be uniformly conscientious then it must be acknowledg'd that it is only Weakness or Ignorance that raiseth their Scruples and not any vicious Principle and the condition of those who are under the power of such Scruples is much to be commiserated But when I see a Man scrupling praying by a Book or Form and yet living without any sense of God or fear of him afraid of a Ceremony in God's Worship and not afraid of a plain damnable Sin of Coveteousness rash censuring his Brethren of Hatred and Strife Faction and Schism and disobedience to Superiours when I see one that out of Conscience refuseth to kneel at the Sacrament and yet dares totally neglect the Communion who takes great care not to give offence to his weak Brother but can freely speak evil of Dignities and despise his lawful Governours it is not then uncharitable to say That it is not a dread of displeasing God but some other End or Interest that acts and moves him and that in pleading the Tenderness of his Conscience he is no other than a downright Hypocrite 3. 'T is excessively troublesome and vexatious It robs a Man of that Peace and Satisfaction which he might otherwise find in Religion and makes his Condition continually uneasy and restless 4. It 's scruples are infinite and endless for there is hardly any thing to be done but some small exceptions may be started against it Scrupulous Men go on from one Thing to another till at Length they Scruple every thing This is notorious amongst us for those who have taken Offence at some things in our Church and have thereupon separated from us and associated themselves with a purer Congregation have soon dislik'd something amongst them also and then they wou'd reform themselves farther and after that refine themselves more still till at last they have sunk down either into Quakerism Popery or Atheism 5. This Needless scrupling has done unspeakable mischiefs to the Church of Christ especially to the Reform'd Church of England In the great and necessary Truths of Religion we all profess to be agreed We all worship the same God believe in the same Lord and Saviour have the same Baptism the same Faith the same Hope the same common Interest our Sacraments as to the main are rightly administred according to our Saviour's Institution our Churches are acknowledg'd to be true Churches of Jesus Christ but there are some Constitutions which chiefly respect outward Order and the decent Performance of Divine Worship against which Men have receiv'd strange Prejudices on the account of them have rais'd a mighty noise and clamour against the Church and have openly separated from her Communion as if by renouncing of Popery we had only exchanged one idolatrous Service for another About these Skirts and Borders the dress and circumstances of Religion has been all our quarrelling and contention and these Differences have proceeded to such an height as to beget immortal Feuds and Animosities to break and crumble us into little Parties and Factions whereby mutual Edification is hinder'd our common Religion suffers Reproach the Enemies of it are strengthen'd and encouraged public Peace endanger'd and brotherly Love the Badge of Christ's Disciples quite lost amongst us and the continuance of these miserable Distractions amongst us upon such frivolous Accounts is a matter of sad consideration and forebodes great Evils in Church and State I doubt not to say that the Devil has fought more successfully against Religion under the Mask of a zealous Reformer than under any other disguise whatever Thirdly I shall offer some plain Rules and Means by which we may best get rid of a Scrupulous Conscience 1. We shou'd Endeavour to have the most Honourable thoughts of God for accordingly as we Conceive of His Nature so shall we judge what Things are most Pleasing or most Offensive to Him Now consider I pray Do's not God principally Regard the Frame of our Minds in Prayer or will He refuse to hear us because He dislikes the Garment of the Minister Do's God regard any particular Gestures or Habits which are neither Dishonourable to Him nor Unsutable to the Nature of the Religious performance so far as that the acceptance of our Worship shou'd depend upon such Circumstances To surmise any such Thing is surely to Dishonour God as if he were a low poor humoursom Being like a Father that shou'd disinherit his Dutiful Child only because he did not like his Complexion or the Colour of his Hair The Wiser and Greater any Person is to whom we address our selves the less he will stand upon little Punctilioes Mean Thoughts of God are the true ground of all Superstition when we think to court and please him by making great Conscience about little things and so it has been truly observ'd that there is far more Superstition in conscientious abstaining from that which God has no where forbidden than there is in doing that which God has not commanded A Man may certainly do what God has not commanded and yet never think to flatter God by it nor place any Religion in it but he may do it only out of obedience to his Superiours for outward Order and Decency for which end our Ceremonies are appointed and so there is no Superstition in them But now a Man cannot out of Conscience refuse to do what God has not forbidden and is by lawful Authority requir'd of him but he must think to please God by such abstaining and in this conceit of pleasing or humouring God by indifferent things consists the true Spirit of Superstition 2. We shou'd lay out our Great Care and Zeal about the Necessary and Essential Duties of Religion and this will make us less Concern'd about Things of an Idifferent and Inferiour Nature St. Paul saies Rom. 14.17 The Kingdom of God is not Meat nor Drink but Righteousness Peace and Joy in the Holy Ghost What needs all this stir and bustle this censuring disputing and dividing about Standing or Kneeling These are not the great matters of our Faith they are not worth so much Noise and Contention The great stress and weight in our Religion is laid upon the Duties of a Righteous and Holy Life and a Peaceable Spirit and Conversation For saies St. Paul ver 18. he that in these things serveth Christ is acceptable to God and approv'd of
lawful and since Conformity is injoin'd and since nothing is more plain from Scripture than that we must obey our Superiours in all lawful things therefore 't is evident that we must not omit the duty of Conforming for fear of giving Offence But 't is Objected that those Precepts which contain only rituals are to give place to those which concern the welfare of Mens Bodies and much more to those which concern the welfare of their Souls so that when both together cannot be observ'd we must break the former to observe the latter God will have mercy and not sacrifice Now if sacrifices prescrib'd by God himself must give place to Acts of Mercy much more must Human Inventions yeild to them To this I answer that the commands of our Superiours do not bind us either in a case of absolute necessity or when they plainly hinder any moral duty to God or our Neighbour but this is only when the necessity is urgent and extreme and the sin we must otherwise commit evident and certain and at last our obedience is dispensed withal only for that one time We may be absent from Church to save the life of our Neighbour or to quench the firing of his house but 't wou'd be a pitiful pretence for the constant neglect of our public Prayers because in the mean time our Neighbours house may be fired or his life invaded and so he may stand in need of our help Tho' this argument may serve to excuse the omission of something commanded by lawful Authority in extraordinary cases which very rarely happen yet to be sure it will not help those who live in open disobedience to the Laws only because they are loth to offend those who are not satisfy'd with what is appointed But say they Scandal is Spiritual Murther and if we must obey Authority tho' Scandal follow then when Authority commands we may murther the Soul of our Brother and destroy him by our meats for whom Christ dy'd But I answer that wearing a Surplice Kneeling at the Sacrament c. will not make Men forsake Christianity which I have prov'd is the only proper Scandalizing our Brother which St. Paul charges with the guilt of Soul-murther Nay this argument concludes as strongly against obedience to any other command of God if a Brother be offended at it as it do's against submission to Superiours in things lawful For 't is not only the Law of Man but the Law of God also that is broken by disobedience to Superiours We cannot be bound to transgress a plain Law of God for fear of some evil that may chance to happen to some others thro' their own fault because every one is bound to have a greater care of his own than of others Salvation and consequently to avoid sin in himself than to prevent it in his Brethren Nay as Bishop Sanderson saies To allow Men under pretence that some offence may be taken thereat to disobey Laws and Constitutions made by those that are in Authority over us is the next way to cut the Sinews of all Authority and to bring both Magistrates and Laws into contempt for what Law ever was made or can be made so just and reasonable but some Men or other either did or might take offence thereat If it be here asked whether any Human Authority can make that action cease to be Scandalous which if done without any such command had been Scandalous I answer that no Authority can secure that others shall not be offended by what I do out of obedience to it but then it frees me from blame by making that my duty which if I had otherwise done might have been uncharitable If it be said that avoiding of Scandal is a main duty of charity and that if Superiours may appoint how far I shall shew my charity towards my Brother's Soul then an earthly Court may cross the determinations of the Court of heaven I answer that here is no crossing the Determinations of God since it is his express Will that in all lawful things we shou'd obey our Governours and he who has made this our Duty will not lay to our charge the Mischiefs that may sometimes without our fault thro' the folly and peevishness of Men follow from it And certainly it is as equal and reasonable that our Superiours shou'd appoint how far we shall exercise our Charity towards our Brethren as it is that the mistake and prejudice of any private Christians shou'd set Bounds to their Power and Authority or that every ignorant and froward Brother shou'd determine how far we shall be obedient to those whom God has set over us But farther duties of justice are of stricter obligation than duties of Charity Now obedience to Superiours is a debt and we injure them if we do not pay it but avoiding Scandal is a duty of charity which indeed we are obliged to as far as we can but not till we have given to every one his due It is therefore saies Bishop Sanderson no more lawful for me to disobey the lawful command of a Superiour to prevent thereby the Offence of one or a few Brethren than it is lawful for me to do one Man wrong to do another Man a courtesy withal or than it is lawful for me to rob the Exchequer to Relieve an Hospital If it be reply'd that tho' the care of not giving Offence be in respect of our Brother but a debt of Charity yet in regard of God it is a legal debt since he may and do's require it as due and we do him wrong if we disobey him I grant indeed that we are requir'd both to be obedient to Superiours and to be Charitable to our Brother but then I say this is not the Charity which God requires when I give what is none of my own A servant must be Charitable to the Poor according to his ability but he must not rob his Master to Relieve them Our Superiours only must consider the danger of Scandal but we must consider the duty we owe them this being a matter wherein we cannot shew our charity without violating the right of our Superiours Thus then it is plain that they are things merely indifferent not only in their own nature but also in respect to us in the use of which we are obliged to consider the Weakness of our Brethren What is our duty must be done tho' Scandal follow it but in matters wherein our practice is not determin'd by any command we ought so to exercise our Liberty as to avoid if possible giving any Offence 'T is an undoubted part of Christian Charity to endeavour by admonition instruction good example and by the forbearance of things lawful at which we foresee our Neighbour out of weakness will be apt to be Scandaliz'd to prevent his falling into any sin or mischief After this manner do we profess our selves ready to do or forbear any thing in our own power to gain Dissenters to the Church but
Prayer in public Worship but of this I have discours'd at large in the third Chapter 3. Shew us any Church that did not always observe festivals in Commemoration of Christ and his Saints 4. Name any one Church since the Apostles times that had not it's Rites and Ceremonies as many if not more in Number and as liable to Exception as those that we use Nay there are few things if any at all requir'd by us which were not in use in the best Ages of Christianity Nay farther I could easily (h) See Durel 's View of the Goverm c. and Spirit 's Cassend Anglic. p. 123 c. shew that most if not all the Usages of our Church are either practis'd in foreign Churches or at least allow'd of by the most Eminent and Learned Divines of the Reformation Consider also that Separation is the ready way to bring in Popery as Mr. Baxter (i) Defence p. 27 52. has prov'd The Church of England is the great Bulwark against Popery and therefore the Papists have us'd all possible Means to destroy it and particularly by Divisions They have attempted to pull it down by pretended Protestant hands and have made use of you to bring about their own designs In order hereunto they have upon all Occasions strenuously promoted the Separation and mixt themselves with you they have put on every Shape that they might the better follow the Common Outery against the Church as Popish and Antichristian spurring you on to call for a more pure and spiritual Way of Worship and to clamour for Liberty and Toleration as foreseeing that when they had subverted all Order and beaten you out of all sober Principles you must be necessitated at last to center in the Communion of the Romish Church This trade they began almost in the very infancy of the Reformation as appears by the (k) Foxes and Firebrands stories of Comin and Heath and no doubt they held on the same in succeeding Times as appears besides all other Instances by (l) See Stillingfleet's Unreasonableness of Separation Pref. p. 20 c. Bellarini's Letter concerning the best Way of managing the Popish Interest in England upon the Restoration of King Charles the II. For therein it was advis'd to foment Fears and Jealousies of the King and Bishops to asperse the Bishops and Ministers of the Church of England and to represent it's Doctrine and Worship as coming too near the Church of Rome to second the factious in promoting an Indulgence and to endeavour that the Trade and Treasure of the Nation might be engross'd between themselves and other discontented Parties We know how restless and industrious the Romish Faction has ever been and the only visible security we have against the prevailing of it lies in the firm Union of Protestants And therefore I conjure you by all the kindness which you pretend for the Protestant Religion heartily to join in Communion with us For the Common Enemy waits all Opportunities and stands ready to enter at those breaches which you are Making You might condemn the Rashness of your own Counsels and lament it it may be when it wou'd be too late if you shou'd see Popery erected upon the ruins of that Church which you your selves had overthrown It wou'd be a sad addition to your Miseries if the Guilt and Shame of them too might be laid to your charge With what remorse wou'd you reflect upon it when the heat of your Passion was over if the Protestant Profession shou'd be farther endanger'd and the Agents of Rome get greater advantages daily by those Distractions which have been secretly managed by them but openly carried on and maintain'd by your selves With what face wou'd you look to see the Papists not only triumphing over you but mocking and deriding you for being so far impos'd upon by their Cunning as to be made the immediate instruments of your own Ruin Therefore I beseech you not to act as if you were prosecuting the Designs of the Conclave and proceed just as if you were govern'd by the Decrees of the pretended Infallible Chair You may be asham'd to look so much like Tools in the hands of the Jesuits when you suffer your selves to be guided by those Measures which they had taken and talk and do as they wou'd have you as if you were immediately inspir'd from Rome To these arguments I must add another which I hope will prevail with you viz. I cannot see how you can avoid being self-condemn'd if you continue in your Separation For certain it is that most of you have been at our Churches and receiv'd the Sacrament there and I am not willing to think that you acted against your Consciences or did it merely to secure a gainful Office or a place of Trust or to escape the Lash and Penalty of the Law These are Ends so very Vile and Sordid this is so horrible a Prostitution of the Holy Sacrament the most venerable Mystery of our Religion so deliberate a Way of sinning even in the most solemn act of Worship that I can hardly suspect any shou'd be guilty of it but Men of Profligate and Atheistical Minds But then why do's not the same Principle that brings you at one Time bring you at another Why can we never have your Company but when Punishment or Advantage prompts you to it We blame the Papists for dispensing with Oaths and receiving the Sacrament to serve a turn and to advance the Interest of their Cause but God forbid that so heavy a Charge shou'd ever lie at the Doors of Protestants and especially those who wou'd be thought most to abhor Popish practices and who wou'd take it ill to be accounted not to make as much if not more Conscience of their Waies than other Men. Now I beseech you to reason a little If our Communion be sinful why did you enter into it If it be lawful why do you forsake it Is it not that which the commands of Authority have ty'd upon you which Commands you are bound to submit to not only for Wrath but also for Conscience sake Are not the Peace and Unity of the Church things that ought greatly to sway with all Sober Humble and Considering Christians If it be possible saies the Apostle and as much as lies in you live peaceably with all men And shall Peace be broken only in the Church where it ought to be kept most intire And that by those who acknowledge it to be possible and within their Power Are you satisfy'd in your Conscience to join in Communion with us and will you not do it for the sake of the Church of God Will you refuse to do what is lawful and as the Case stands necessary in order to Peace only because Authority commands and has made it your Duty Let me intreat you as you love your dear Redeemer to do as much for the Peace of His Church as for a Vote or Office and to come to the Sacrament