in such a Condition that he apprehends he runs an equal danger of sinning whether he receives the Sacrament or receives it not And withal so unskilful a Judge is he of the morality of Actions that he apprehends no great difference in the degree of the sin whether he do the one or the other In this Case now all the Man can do is to consider what Inducements he has in Point of Prudence or Interest to do or to forbear the Action he doubts about for since all other Considerations in the Case are equal those of this kind are to turn the Ballance according to our Fourth Proposition But if the Case turn upon this Point I dare say no man will be long doubtful whether he should frequent the Sacrament in obedience to the Laws or forbear it For it is plain that he Acts more Prudently and more consults his own Advantage both Temporal and Spiritual by doing the former As for the Temporal Advantages which a Man receives by obeying the Laws in this matter I will not now insist on them though they are neither few nor inconsiderable That which I desire chiefly to be here considered is this That in point of Spiritual Advantages it is much more advisable for our Doubting Person to come to the Sacrament than to abstain from it For by frequenting this Ordinance he takes the best method both to grow more worthy if he be now unworthy and likewise to cure the Doubts and Scruples he is now troubled with But if he neglect this means of Grace he not only takes an effectual course to increase and perpetuate his Fears and Doubts it being very probable that the longer he defers his receiving the Sacrament still the more doubtful will he be of his being qualified for it But also is in great danger to lose that sense of Virtue and Religion that he now hath upon his Spirit because he denyes himself the use of those Means and Helps which are most principally necessary for the preserving and maintaining it Now I say supposing all other things in the Case equal this very Consideration alone will prevail with a reasonable Man to come to the Sacrament rather than forbear it even at the same time that he mightily doubts whether he shall not receive unworthily Thus have I given a large Exemplification of all our Rules concerning a Double Doubt in this Instance of receiving the Holy Communion If I have dwelt too long upon this Subject I hope the Frequency and the Importance of the Case will in some measure excuse me III. Having thus prepared our way by settling the Notion and the Rule of a Doubting Conscience I come now more directly to the main Business that is before us and that is to give an Account what share Humane Laws Ecclesiastical or Civil have in the Rule of a Doubting Conscience or what Power they have to over-rule a mans Doubts in any Case which according to the method I proposed is the Third general Enquiry I am to resolve This is indeed the great Point that is disputed between us and those of the Separation Nay I may say it is the Point upon which that whole Controversie turns so far as a Doubting Conscience is concerned in it And therefore I shall discuss it as carefully as I can but yet in such a general way as that what I have to offer may serve for all other Doubtful Cases of this Nature as well as this which we are now concerned in Their Assertion generally is this generally I say For there are some of the Dissenters and those as Learned and Eminent as any who have declared themselves of another Opinion viz. That wherever a Man Doubts concerning the Lawfulness of an Action that very Doubt of his is a sufficient Reason to make him forbear that Action though Lawful Authority hath commanded it On the other side our Assertion is That wherever Lawful Authority hath Commanded an Action that Command is generally speaking a sufficient Warrant for a Man to do that Action though he Doubts whether in it self it be Lawful or no. That I may speak clearly to this Point I shall First premise some things in order to our more distinct understanding the State of the Question Secondly I shall shew the Grounds and Reasons of our Assertion Thirdly I shall endeavour to answer the Chief Arguments that are brought on the other side I. What I think needful to be premised for the right apprehending the State of the Question I shall comprise in these following Particulars by which it may be easily discerned how far we agree with the Dissenters in this matter and in what we differ from them First We do readily own with them that no Anthority upon Earth can oblige its Subjects to do any Action which the Law of God hath forbidden or to forbear any Action which the Law of God hath commanded Secondly We agree likewise with them in this That wherever any Subject hath taken up an Opinion or Perswasion that such an Action which his Governours have obliged him to is against the Law of God though it be a false Opinion or Perswasion yet it will so far bind him that he cannot in that Instance obey their Laws without offending God. But then we say on the other hand That though he cannot Obey without sin so long as this Perswasion continues yet he is at the same time guilty of sin in disobeying if he should prove to be mistaken supposing that it was through his own fault that he fell into that mistake Thirdly We acknowledge further That in a Case where a Man cannot be said to be Perswaded that the particular Action enjoyned by Authority is a sinful Action but only he Doubts whether it be so or no Yet if the Man hath a general Perswasion that no Publick Law will warrant him to act against his Private doubt in this Case he can no more do the Action enjoyned without sin than he could in the former Case But then if this Notion of his be false as it is my present business to shew that it is so he cannot be excused from sin in disobeying his Superiors unless upon the former account of inculpable Ignorance Fourthly We say this farther That a Culpable Doubt doth no more excuse the doing an Evil Action than a Culpable Ignorance i. e. it doth not excuse it My meaning is this If a man should be so little instructed in his Religion as to Doubt whether that which is plainly enjoyned by Gods Law be a Duty or no Or whether that which is plainly forbid by Gods Law be a sin or no so plainly I mean that it is the duty of every Honest Man to know this and he must be most criminally Ignorant that can be so stupid as to make a Doubt of it If I say in such a Case as this a man should Doubt whether the thing commanded by his Superiours was Lawful or no We are so far from saying that a Man
doth well in obeying his Superiours in such an instance where their commands do so manifestly contradict the Laws of God that on the contrary we affirm the man is highly accountable to God for all such Actions that he doth though they were done purely in obedience to that Authority which God hath set over him and purely in compliance with this Principle we are now contending for viz. That in all Doubtful Cases it is most reasonable to govern our Actions by the Commands of our Superiours Far are we therefore from asserting That whatever our Governours do command the Subject is bound to perform so long as he only Doubts but is not perswaded of the unlawfulness of the thing commanded And that if there be any sin in the Action he that commands it is to answer for it and not he that obeys For we do believe that in matters where a mans Conscience is concerned every one is to be a Judge for himself and must answer for himself And therefore if our Superiours do command us to do an Action which their Superiour God Almighty hath forbid we are offenders if we do that Action as well as they in commanding it and that whether we do it Doubtingly or with a Perswasion of its Lawfulness But then these two things are always to be remembred First That this is true only in such Cases where as I said a man is bound to know that Gods Law hath forbid that Action which his Governours do command and it is either through his gross carelesness or some other worse Principle in him that he knows it not or is doubtful of it For wherever a man is innocently and inculpably Ignorant or Doubtful how the Law of God stands as to such a particular matter which Authority hath obliged him to as neither having means to come to the knowledge of it or if he had the Circumstances of his condition not requiring that he should so accurately inform himself about it In such a Case as this I say a man cannot formally be said to be guilty of sin in obeying his Lawful Superiors though the instance in which he obeys should happen to contradict some Law of God. For the Law of God here is as no Law to him that is it doth not oblige him because he neither knows it nor is bound to know it And where there is no Law there is no transgression And then further this is also to be remembred that when we own that a man may be guilty of sin as well in obeying his Superiours when he only doubts of the Lawfulness of the Action commanded as when he is Perswaded that the Action is unlawful I say this we are to remember that when ever this Case happens the mans sin doth not lye in his obeying his Superiors with a Doubting Conscience which is commonly run away with For the man would as certainly sin if in this Case he did the Action with a Perswasion that it was Lawful as he doth in doing it with a Doubt whether it be Lawful or no. But the sin lies here viz. in doing an Action which Gods Law hath forbid and which the man would have known to be an ill Action if he had been so honest and so careful in minding his Duty as he should have been It is his Acting contrary to a Law of God that here makes the matter of the sin and it is his vitious criminal Ignorance of that Law which gives the Form to it But as for the obeying his Superiours whether with a Doubt or without one that is no part or ingredient of the sin at all Fifthly We add this further That whatever Power or Right we give to our Superiours for the over-ruling a Private Doubt it is not to be extended so far as either to destroy the Truth or to supersede the Use of those Rules I have before laid down in order to the directing a mans proceeding in the Case of a Double Doubt For this Case of obeying the Commands of our Superiours when we doubt of the Lawfulness of them being a Double Doubt as properly as any other those Rules are here to take place as much as in any other instance And therefore where ever a mans Doubts are in this Case very unequal That is to say he apprehends himself in much greater danger of sinning if he obey his Superiors in this particular instance than if he obey them not as having abundantly more Reason to believe that their Commands are Unlawful than that they are Lawful In that Case we cannot say he is obliged to obey but should rather disobey supposing all other Considerations be equal For no man is bound to obey his Superiours any farther than they command Lawful things And therefore if it be two to one more Probable that their Command is Unlawful than that it is Lawful it is likewise more Probable that a man in this Instance is not to obey them And a greater Probability caeteris paribus is alway to be chosen before a less according to our First Rule But then though the Authority of our Superiours alone will not in this Case be of force enough to retrieve the Ballance which is so far inclined the other way and to turn it on its own side yet there may be and very usually are such other Arguments drawn from the Consideration of the greater sin and the more dreadful Consequences of disobeying in this instance than of obeying as will to any reasonable man out-weigh all the Probabilities on the other side so long as they are not so great as to create a perswasion and make it reasonable for the man rather to do the Action how strong soever his Doubts be of the unlawfulness of it so long as they are but Doubts than to omit it after Lawful Authority hath enjoyned it But however this happen It is always to be born in mind as before that if it should prove that our Superiours do command nothing in the particular Instances but what they Lawfully may do It will not justifie any mans disobedience to say that he apprehended it was more dangerous or more sinful to obey them than to disobey them For our Mistakes and false Reasonings will not take off from the Obligation that is upon us to obey our Lawful Superious in their Lawful Commands unless as I have often said we can satisfie our selves that in those Instances we neither were bound nor had sufficient means to understand better And now having thus cleared our way by removing from our Question those things that are Foreign to it and which indeed by being usually blended with it have made it more intricate than otherwise it would be we are pretty well prepared to propose our Point In the Sixth place then Excluding as we have done out of our Case all those Things and Circumstances we have been speaking of with none of which we have here to do the plain Question before us is this Whether in the Case of a
with any Impartial Conscientious Man out weigh all the Probabilities on the other side so long as they are not so great as to create a Perswasion and make it reasonable for him rather to Conform how strong soever his Doubt be about the Lawfulness of Conformity so long as it is but a Doubt than to continue in Separation Vide Third Proposition about a Double Doubt pag. 27. This is the Issue upon which we will try the Point before us and I refuse no indifferent Man that will but have the Patience to hear what we have to say to be Umpire between us and our Dissenting Brethren as to this Controversie In the first place let us suppose and admit that the man who hath these Doubts and Suspicions about the Lawfulness of our Established Worship doth really Doubt on the true side and that he would indeed be a Transgressor of the Law of God if he should Conform to it But then it must be admitted likewise that That Law of God which forbids these things in dispute is wonderfully obscurely declared There are no direct Prohibitions either in the Law of Nature or the Book of God about those things that are now Contested so that the unlawfulness of them is only to be concluded from Consequences And those Consequences likewise are so obscure that the Catholick Church from Christs time till our Reformation was wholly ignorant of them For though it doth appear that either these or the like Usages have always been in the Church Yet it doth not appear in all that compass of Time either that any Particular Church ever condemned them as sinful Or indeed that any Particular Christian did ever Separate from the Church upon the Account of them And even at this Day these Consequences by which they are proved unlawful are not discovered by our Governours either in Church or State. No nor by as Learned and Religious Divines of all Perswasions as any in the World. The most Divines by far the most and those as Pious and as Able as any are clearly of Opinion that there is nothing Unlawful in our Worship but that on the contrary all things therein prescribed are at least Innocent and free from sin if not Pure and Apostolical So that if it should at last prove that they are all mistaken Yet the Law of God which forbids these things being so very obscure and the Sense of it so hardly to be found out it is a great Presumption that a man may very innocently and inculpably be Ignorant of it And if so it will be a very little or no sin at all in him to act against it Because if it was not his Duty to know this Law it cannot be his Sin that his Practice is not according to it And if it was his Duty to know it yet it being so obscurely delivered and only to be gathered by such remote Consequences it can at most be but a Sin of Ignorance in an ordinary Person where so many of the best Guides are mistaken if he should transgress it And then farther This must likewise be considered That if Conformity to our Liturgy and Worship should prove a sin in any Instance Yet the Evil Consequences of it extend no farther than the Mans Person that is guilty of it There is no damage ariseth either to the Christian Religion or to the Publick Interest of the Kingdom by any mans being a Conformist But on the contrary as things stand with us Unity and Conformity to the Established way seem to bring a great advantage to both as I hinted before and to be a probable means to secure us from many Dangers with which our Reformed Religion and the Peace of the Kingdom is threatned Well but now on the other hand Let us suppose the contrary side of the Question to be true viz. That our Governours in this matter are in the Right and we are in the Wrong That there is nothing required of us in the Church of England as a Term of Communion but what is very Innocent and Lawful however it be our misfortune to Doubt that there is and in a zealous Indulgence to these Doubts we take the liberty to live in open disobedience to our Lawful Governours and to break the Unity of the Church into which we were Baptized I say admitting the thing to be thus what kind of Sin shall we be guilty of then Why certainly we are guilty of no less a Sin than causlesly dividing the Body of Christ against which we are o severely cautioned in the New Testament We are guilty of the Breach of as plain Laws as any are in the Bible viz. Of all those that oblige us to keep the Unity of the Spirit in the Bond of Peace that Command us to Obey those that are over us in the Lord to be subject to the Higher Powers to submit to every Ordinance of man for the Lords sake to be subject not only for Wrath but for Conscience sake I say these plain Laws we disobey for Conscience sake and we disobey them too in such Instances where we have the whole Catholick Church of old and far the greatest and the best part of the present Church of a different Persasion from us Well but as if this was not enough What are the Consequences of this our Sin For by the Consequences of a sin the greatness of it is always to be estimated I speak as to the Material part of it with which we are here concerned Why they are most Terrible and Dreadful both with respect to our selves and others By this unnatural Separation we do for any thing we know put our selves out of the Communion of the Catholick Church and consequently out of the enjoyment of the ordinary means of Salvation We maintain and keep up Divisions and Disorders in the Church and lend a helping hand to all those Animosities and Hatreds all that bitter Contention and Strife and Uncharitableness which hath long torn the very Bowels of Christs Church and given occasion to that Deluge of Atheism and Profaneness and Impiety which hath over-spread the Face of it We put Affronts upon our Lawful Governours who should be in the place of God to us We give Scandal to all our Brethren that make a Conscience of living Peaceably and Piously And lastly as we offer a very fair Handle and Pretence to all Discontented and Factious men to Practice against the Best of Governments So we take the most effectual course to Ruine the Best Constituted Church in the World and with it the Reformed Religion in this Kingdom This now being the Nature and these being the Consequences of our Separation from the Established Church among us I leave it to any indifferent man to Determine whether any Doubt about the Lawfulness of our Communion though that Doubt be backed with greater Probabilities than do appear on the other side nay if you will with all the Probabilities that can consist with the nature of a Doubt can have weight enough to Ballance against such a Sin and such Consequences as Separation in our Case doth involve a man in I think there is no unconcerned Person but will pronounce that supposing where there are Doubts on both sides a man is to chuse that side on which there is the least appearance of Sin he is in this Case certainly bound to chuse Communion with the Established Church rather than Separation from it And that is all I Contenâ—â—â— for But now after all this is said it must be acknowledged that if there be any man who hath other apprehensions of these matters and that after a Consideration of all things that are to be said for or against Conformity it doth appear to him upon the whole matter both more probable that our Communion is sinful than that it is a Duty and withal that to Communicate with us will involve him in a greater sin and in worse Consequences than no continue in Separation I say if any man have so unfortunate an understanding as to make such an estimate of things we must acknowledge that according to all the Rules of a Doubting Conscience such a man is rather to continue a Non-conformist than to obey the Laws of the King and the Church But then let him look to it for his acting in this Case according to the best Rules of a Doubting Conscience will not as I said before at all acquit him either of the Guilt or Consequences of Criminal Schism and Disobedience Supposing that indeed he is all along under a mistake as we say he certainly is and that there is nothing required in our Communion that he might not honestly and lawfully comply with as there certainly is not Unless in the mean time the man fell into these mistakes without any fault of his and God Almighty who is the Judge of all mens Hearts and Circumstances doth know he had not means and opportunities to understand better FINIS ADVERTISEMENT 1. A Discourse concerning Conscience the first Part. Wherein an Account is given of the Nature and Rule and Obligation of it And the Case of those who Separate from the Communion of the Church of England as by Law Established upon this Pretence That it is against their Conference to joyn in it is stated and discussed 2. A Resolution of this Case viz. Whether it be Lawful to Seporate from the Publick Worship of God in the Parochial 〈◊〉 lies of England upon that new Pretence which some Men make of the Case being much 〈…〉 from what it was when the Puritans wrote against the Browâ—â—â—s and the Presbyters against the Independent 3. Resolution of two Cases of Conscience in two Discourses The First Of the Lawfulness of Compliance with all the Ceremonies of the Câ—â—â—â—s of England The Second Of the necessity of the use of Common-Prayer in Publick All Three Printed for Walter Kettilby
Law of God than of observing that Law as well as we can though with much unworthiness I will only add this further with reference to this Particular of receiving the Sacrament Though I am far from encouraging any to approach to the Lords Table without due Qualifications or from extenuating any mans sin that comes unworthily unworthily I mean in the Scripture Sense of that word and not as it is understood by many melancholly scrupulous Persons Yet this I say That if Men did seriously consider what a sin it is to live without the Sacrament it being no other than living in an open affront to the express Institution of our Lord Jesus and a renouncing the Worship of God and the Communion of the Church in the great Instance of Christian Worship and Christian Communion And withal what dreadful Consequences they bring upon themselves hereby even the depriving themselves of the chief of those ordinary means which our Lord hath appointed for the obtaining Remission of sins and the Grace and Influence of his Holy Spirit I say if men did seriously consider these things they would not look upon it as so slight a matter voluntarily to Excommunicate themselves as to the partaking in this great Duty and Priviledge of Christians but what apprehensions soever they had of the sin and the danger of receiving unworthily they would for all that think it more sinful and more dangerous not to receive at all I have said enough in answer to this Objection from St. Paul perhaps too much considering how often these things have been said I will now go on with our Case In the Third place therefore let us suppose our Doubting Man for these or such like Reasons as we have given to have such a Sense of his Duty that he generally takes the opportunities that are offered him of doing Honour to our Lord by partaking in his Supper though perhaps he is not often very well satisfied about his Preparation But so it happens that since his last Communicating he finds his Mind in a much worse frame than it used to be He hath lived more loosely and carelesly than he was wont or perhaps he hath been very lately guilty of some grievous sin that lies heavy upon his Conscience So that when his next usual time of Receiving comes he cannot but apprehend himself in a very unfit condition to Communicate in so sacred a Mystery Upon this he is in a great perplexity what to do For on the one side he thinks he hath more reason to believe that he offends God if he comes to the Sacrament in these Circumstances than if he forbears because he is more certain that there is a Law of God that forbids him to come unworthily than he is certain that there is a Law of God that commands him to receive every time that he hath opportunity But now on the other hand if it should prove that he is really bound by Gods Law to Commemorate the Death of Christ in the Sacrament every time that an opportunity is offered He is sensible in that Case it is a greater sin to neglect this Duty than to perform it unworthily so long still as he performs it out of Conscience What now is the Man to do in these Circumstances This is an exact Instance of the Case I spoke to in my third Proposition where on one side the Man runs a greater danger of sinning but on the other side if he should prove mistaken he sins in a greater degree Now for a Resolution of this Case I say that if the Question be put concerning the Mans absenting himself only once or twice from the Communion in order to the exercise of Repentance and the putting himself into a better frame of mind against another opportunity The Answer according to our Third Proposition must be this That it is very reasonable thus to do And there is good ground for this Answer For certainly a Man is more in danger of sinning if he receive unworthily than if he do not receive every time that there is a Communion There being an express Law against the one but no express Law obliging to the other For Christ hath no more appointed that we should receive the Sacrament so many times in a year than he hath appointed that we should Pray so many times in a day or that we should give such a determinate proportion of our Annual Income to Charitable Uses As to these things he hath bound us in the General but as to the Particulars the Circumstances of our Condition and the Laws of our Superiors are to determine us Only this we are to remember that the oftner we perform these Duties it is the better and we can hardly be said to be Christians if we do not perform them frequently This now being so Though it be true that a Man would be guilty of a greater sin if he should at any time though but once abstain from the Communion than if he should come to it with such unworthiness as we are here speaking of supposing that Christs Law had precisely tied him up to communicate every time that a Communion is appointed Yet since there is so little appearance of Reason to conclude that Christ has thus tied him up and withal on the other hand he runs so certain a danger of sinning if he should Communicate at this time apprehending himself to be so unworthy as he doth This Consideration of the certain danger must needs in this Case overballance the other of the greater sin and make it appear more Reasonable to the Man to suspend his receiving to another Opportunity against which time he hopes to be better prepared than to adventure upon it in his present Circumstances But then if the Question be put concerning the Mans absenting himself Customarily and Habitually from the Lords Table upon this a count of unworthiness that which I have now said will not hold For in this Case the Man is in as much danger of sinning by not receiving at all as by receiving unworthily nay and a great deal more as I shewed in my first particular about this Case And withal he is guilty of a much greater sin in wholly withdrawing from the Sacrament than in coming to it though with never so great Apprehensions of his own unworthiness as I shewed in my second And therefore since the danger is at least equal on both sides he must chuse that side on which the least sin lies That is to say he must Communicate frequently at least so often as the Laws of the Church do enjoin him which is three times a year though he be in danger of doing it unworthily rather than not Communicate at all Having thus gone through Three of our Propositions concerning a Double Doubt All that remains is to put our Case about the Sacrament so as that it may serve for an Instance or Illustration of our fourth and last Here therefore we are to suppose our Doubting Man to be
of a Doubting Conscience Or Whether a Doubting Conscience doth bind at all and how far In answer to this I say in general It is certain that a Doubting Conscience of it self lays no Obligation at all upon a man any way Indeed it is a kind of Contradiction to suppose that it should For I pray What is the Notion of a Doubting Conscience but this That a man is uncertain or unresolved in his mind whether as to this particular Action he be bound or not bound To suppose now that a man is obliged in Conscience either way by vertue of this Doubt is plainly to suppose that a man takes himself to be bound while yet at the same time he is disputing with himself whether he be bound or no. To speak this plainer if I can Since Conscience as I have often said is nothing else but a mans Judgment concerning Actions whether they be Duties or Sins or indifferent And since the Law of God Commanding or Forbidding Actions or neither Commanding or Forbidding them is the only Rule by which a man can judge what Actions are Duties and what are Sins and what are Indifferent It plainly follows that a man cannot be bound in Conscience to do any Action which it doth not appear to him that Gods Law hath some way or other Commanded and made a Duty or to Forbear any Action which he is not convinced in his Judgment that Gods Law hath some where or other Forbidden and so made a Sin. And therefore since in a Case where a Man is purely Doubtful he cannot be supposed to have any such Convictions that the Law of God doth either Command or Forbid the Action Doubted of for if he had he would no longer Doubt It follows likewise by undeniable Consequence that a Mans Conscience is not bound on either side of the Action but he may either do it or forbear it with a safe Conscience So that if there be any Obligation at all upon a man to Act thus rather than otherwise in a Doubtful Case that Obligation must arise upon one of these two Accounts viz. Either there is some Law of God concerning a Doubting Conscience which hath tied a man up to such precise measures of Acting Or at least a man hath a Perswasion that there is some such Law of God. Now I grant That in both these Cases there doth a direct Obligation pass upon the mans Conscience But then it is to be remembred that this Obligation doth not arise from the mans being Doubtful in his Conscience but from his being resolved in his Conscience That is to say if there be really any such Law of God it is the Obligation of a Right Conscience Or if there be not but the man only judges that there is it is then the Obligation of an Erroneous Conscience But as for the Obligation of a Doubting Conscience there is no such thing The great therefore or indeed the only Point that is to be inquired into in order to the Resolution of our present Question is this Whether there be any Law of God which doth determine our Actions one way or other in the Case of a Doubt and what that Law is Now in answer to this Inquiry I say That it doth not appear that there is any express Law of God in Holy Scripture that hath laid any Obligation upon us as to this particular of a Doubting Conscience either one way or other The only Texts that I know of which are thought to make for this purpose are the two passages in the 14th of the Romans which I have before largely given an account of viz. That in the 5th Verse Let every man be fully perswaded in his own mind And that other in the last Verse He that doubteth is damned if he eat because he eateth not of Faith. But now I think I have made it plain by several Arguments that these Texts do not at all concern our present Case of a Doubting Conscience properly so called So that there being no express Particular Law of God in Scripture about acting with a Doubting Conscience we seem to be left as to that Affair to the General Laws of God as they are declared whether by Nature or Scripture Now the most that any Man can be Obliged to by the General Laws of God whether Natural or Revealed in the Case of a Doubt is only these two things First to use his Endeavour to get himself as well instructed in his Duty as his Circumstances and Opportunities will allow him And Secondly where he is at a loss for Information in that Case to Act as reasonably as he can I do not say that a Man in every Doubtful Case that happens is strictly obliged to thus much But I say it is impossible he should be obliged to more Because indeed more than this he cannot do and no man can be obliged to more than is in his Power Wherever therefore a Man in a Doubtful Case takes care to observe these two things he Acts with a safe Conscience however he may act Doubtingly in that Case Thus far I think we are clear beyond Exception But it may be some will not be satisfied with this Account of our Point but will be putting a farther Question We have before laid down several Rules about a Mans Acting in a Doubtful Case the sum of all which comes to no more than what we have now said viz. That in every doubtful Case a man is to act as reasonably as he can The Question now is Whether a man is strictly bound in Conscience always to follow this Rule Or which is to the same effect Whether a man in a matter concerning which he hath only a pure Doubt may not without sin indifferently chuse either side of the Action though yet perhaps one side doth appear to him more reasonable or more safe than the other This Question is indeed more curious than useful But however since it properly falls under the Argument we are now treating of and tends somewhat to the clearing of it I shall venture to say something to it Only I declare before-hand that I mean not in what I shall say to assert any thing Dogmatically but only to propose in order to further Examination And withal that whether that which we say be true or false it doth not at all affect the Merits of the main Cause we have undertaken That now which I have to say to this Question is this That though it be eternally fit and natural and conducing to a mans Happiness both in this World and the other that he should in all Cases and especially in Doubtful Cases govern his Actions by the best Reason that he hath and certainly the Wiser and the Better any man is the more steadily will he pursue this Rule Yet on the other hand I dare not say that a man is strictly bound in Conscience so to do so as that he is properly guilty of sin if he do not My Reason is
free from all kind of doubt and scruple about that thing 2. And thus much of Doubting in general I now come to consider it with Respect to Conscience i. e. to enquire how far or in what Cases a mans Conscience is affected with his Doubts Which is our second Point under this Head. There are a thousand Cases in which a man may be doubtful as to which his Conscience shall be no way concerned A mans Doubts may indeed be as various as are the Objects he hath to consider and to make a judgment of and therefore unless we will say that every thing that a man thinks of or saith or doth affects his Conscience we must not say that every Doubt doth As a mans Conscience is not touched nor affected with any thing but his own Actions so neither do a mans Doubts affect or touch his Conscience any further than they concern his Actions So that Doubts about matters of meer Speculation as whether such a Proposition be true or false and likewise Doubts about matter of Fact as whether such a thing was done or not done which do not relate to the Government of a mans own Actions these doubts do not concern his Conscience As a mans Conscience is not affected with his own Actions under any other Notion or Consideration than only as Gods Law is to regulate them viz. as they are either commanded by that Law or forbidden by it so neither do a mans Doubts concerning his Actions affect his Conscience any farther or upon any other account than only as Gods Law may be trangressed by doing or not doing the Action he doubts of that is as he may sin against God either by omitting the Action when Gods Law hath commanded it or by doing it when Gods Law hath forbidden it So that in all doubtful Cases where a man apprehends no danger of transgressing Gods Law whether he doth the Action he doubts about or doth it not there his Conscience is not properly concerned And this is so true that though we should suppose one side of the Action in question to be really all things considered more expedient and more eligible than the other yet so long as we are satisfied that we may without breach of Gods Law chuse either side we are not concern'd in Conscience to chuse that side which is the most expedient or the most eligible For the truth of this besides the reason of the thing we have the authority of St. Paul who when this Case was proposed to him Whether it was better for the Christians in those times to marry or not to marry he thus resolves it That though indeed as things then stood it was better not to marry yet they might do what they would for if they did marry they finned not and though as he saith he that gave not his Virgin in marriage did better than he that gave her in marriage yet he allows that he that gave her in marriage did well and consequently did act with a good Conscience Vid. 1 Cor. 7. 3. From what hath been said we may be able to give a clear account of the Nature of a Doubting Conscience and to distinguish it from the other sorts of Conscience particularly that which they call the Scrupulous which is our Third Point under this Head. Conscience is usually though how properly I will not now dispute distributed into these three Kinds the Resolved the Scrupulous and the Doubting When we speak of a Resolved Conscience every body knows that we mean no more by that Phrase than this that a man is satisfied and resolved in his own Mind concerning the action he hath been deliberating upon viz. that he is bound to do it as being a Duty or that he is bound to forbear it as being a Sin or that he may either do it or forbear it as being an Indifferent action neither commanded nor forbidden by God. Now this Perswasion if it be according to the Rule of the Divine Law we call it a Right Conscience If it be contrary to that Rule we call it an Erroneous Conscience But of this we need speak no more here since it was the whole Argument of the former Discourse As for the Scrupulous Conscience as that is made a distinct sort of Conscience from the Resolved and the Doubting we may thus define it It is a Conscience in some measure resolved but yet accompanied with a Fear of acting according to that Resolution It is the unhappiness of a great many that when they are pretty well satisfied in their Judgment concerning this or the other Point which they made a Mater of Conscience and have nothing considerable to Object against the Evidence that is given them but on the contrary are convinced that they ought or that they may lawfully Act thus or thus Yet for all that when they come to act they are very uneasie and make a world of Difficulties Not that there is any new Reason appears that can pretend to unsettle much less overthrow the Grounds of their first Determination But only their unaccountable Fears must pass for Reasons This now is to have a Scrupulous Conscience in the proper Sense But a Doubting Conscience which is that we are now concerned in though in Common Speech it be often confounded with the Scrupulous is quite different from both these sorts of Conscience For in both those a man is supposed to have passed a Judgment in his own Mind whether the Action before him be according to Gods Law or against it But in the Case of a Doubting Conscience it appears from what I have said that a man hath not nor cannot so long as he doubts make any Judgment at all but is uncertain as to both sides having as he thinks as many Arguments to incline him one way as the other and when once he comes to have so much Evidence as to create a Perswasion or Opinion on one side then he ceaseth to have a Doubting Conscience So that a true Definition of a Doubting Conscience as it is commonly called is this The Suspence of a mans Judgment in a Question about the Duty or the Sin of an Action occasioned by the Equal or near Equal Probabilities on both sides And likewise the true Difference between a Doubting a Resolved and a Scrupulous Conscience is this That the Resolved Conscience is satisfied about its Point and acts confidently at least chearfully The Scrupulous Conscience is likewise satisfied in the general but either dares not act or acts fearfully The Doubting Conscience is not satisfied at all for the Point before it is still a Question of which it can make no Judgment no Resolution because of the equal appearances of Reason on both sides This is a plain account of the Doubting Conscience But after all it must be acknowledged that this which we call a Doubting Conscience and which we have been all this while discoursing of is truly and strictly speaking so far from being any particular sort
do any of these things and if he be a Wise Man he will make no Scruple of Acting accordingly Indeed he cannot be well excused if he do not thus Act. For it will not be sufficient to say I doubt whether these Practices are Lawful or Unlawful and therefore I dare not ingage in them Why Man if you only Doubt about them you do by this acknowledge that for any thing you know they may be Lawful as well as that for any thing you know they may be Unlawful And if you be thus in aequilibrio sure such pressing Considerations as those which are presented in this Case ought to turn the Ballance Otherwise I do not know how you will answer either to your self or the World for the Consequences that may ensue For my part in such Cases as these I should think that nothing less than a Belief or Perswasion that the thing in Question is unlawful will justifie a mans Prudence in Acting on that side which he calls the Safer and which had not these Circumstances happened would really have been so To conclude if a great Good may be compassed or a great Evil may be avoided by doing a thing concerning which we have a General Speculative Doubt whether it be Lawful or no This very Consideration is in Reason sufficient to silence the Doubt That is it is enough to perswade us that it is not only Lawful but Advisable to do that in the present Circumstances which before and out of those Circumstances we Doubted in general whether it was Lawful to be done or no. II. And thus much concerning the Rule by which we are to proceed in the Case of a Single Doubt I now come to consider that which we call a Double Doubt and to shew what is to be done in that Case A Double Doubt as I have said is this when a man doubts on both sides of an Action that is to say he doubts on one side whether he be not bound to do this Action Gods Law having for any thing he knows commanded it but on the other side so doth the Action come circumstantiated to him that he doubts whether he be not by some other Law of God bound to forbear it as it is now offer'd So that he is at a loss what to do because he fears he may sin whether he do the Action or do it not That which is commonly said in this Case viz. That the Man that is entangled must get his Doubt removed and then he may with a safe Conscience act or not act according as he is satisfied in his own mind is as I said before very often impertinent For it is no more in a mans power to leave off Doubting when he will than it is in the power of a Sick man to be Well when he will. And besides though it might be supposed that the man with Time and good Counsel might be enabled to extricate himself out of this Perplexity yet in our Case that Benefit is not always allowed For perhaps the Circumstances of the Case are such that the man is under a present necessity either of acting or not acting and whether he doth the one or the other he doubts he offends God. But what then is a man to do in this Case Why he is to follow the same Rule that he doth in all other Doubtful Cases and which we have been all this while insisting on that is to say he is to Act as reasonably as he can And if he do this I am sure he incurs no blame whether he do the Action he doubts about or do it not If there should happen to be any sin in the Action it comes upon some other account than that of Acting with a Doubting Conscience But now the Application of this General Rule to our present Case is various according to the Degrees of the mans Doubtfulness compared with the Degrees of the sin he is in danger of by acting on the one side or the other And likewise according as other Considerations do happen about the Action which ought to have some influence in determining the man. However I think all those varieties may be comprized in these Four following Propositions First If the Sin we are afraid of in doing or not doing the Action doth on both sides appear equal there we are to determine our selves to that side where we have the least Doubt of offending God that is to say to that side which to our Reason appears more Probable to be free from the danger of sin rather than that other which is less Probable to be free from that danger For certainly this will always be reasonable that a man should chuse a greater Probability before a less supposing all other things equal But Secondly If we doubt equally on both sides so that we apprehend that we are in like danger of transgressing Gods Law whether we do the Action or do it not In this Case we are to determine our selves to that side on which it doth appear we shall be guilty of the least sin For certainly by the same reason for which we are obliged not to sin at all we shall be obliged to chuse a less sin rather than a greater where we cannot avoid sinning Thirdly If the Doubt be unequal and the Sin like-ways unequal that is if it so happen that one side of the Case is more probable but the other side less sinful as not involving a man in so heinous a Crime as the other would if it should prove that he was mistaken In this Case a man may chuse either the one side or the other according as the degree of the Probability or the degree of the Sin compared with one another do preponderate The Case may be such that there is so much more Probability on the one side than the other and likewise so inconsiderable a difference and disproportion between the sins we are in danger of on each side that a Wise man will be determined to the more Probable side and venture all the consequences of his mistakes on the other But then on the other hand the Case may likewise be such that the Consequences on one side if a man should happen to be mistaken are so terrible that they will over-ballance all the Probabilities on the other side let them be never so great supposing they do not amount to so much evidence as to create a Perswasion and so put a man out of the state of Doubting Now here a Wise man will not Act on the more Probable side but on that which sets him free from the danger of these Consequences Thus if a Prisoner was tryed for a Capital Offence and the Evidence against him doth not appear so full as to create a Perswasion in the Judge or Jury that the man is Guilty though indeed it is more Probable that he is than that he is not In this Case I believe all men will say that considering there is so great a disproportion
Or at least they mightily doubted whether they did or not So that whereas other Christians who were better instructed made no scruple of eating any kind of Food though forbidden by the Law of Moses These men had great Reason to forbear such kind of Meats because they were Perswaded or at least it appeared more probable to them than otherwise that they were bound so to do That this was the Case of those that St. Paul here styles the weak Christians appears from several passages of this Chapter nor I think is it much questioned by any As for what is intimated in the second Verse concerning their abstaining from Flesh altogether and only eating Herbs which would make one think that it was not purely their respect to the Law of Moses but some other thing which made them thus to put a difference between Meat◠because by that Law they were no more tyed from Flesh excepting only Swines-Flesh and a few other sorts than they were from Herbs St. Chrysostome hath well obviated this difficulty in the Account he gives of the Case of those Christians There were saith he several of the Believing Jews who taking themselves to be obliged in Conscience by the Law of Moses even after their Christianity did still retain the Observation of Meats not daring wholly to throw off the Yoak of the Law These now lest they should be found out and reproached by the other Christians for thus abstaining from Swines-Flesh and the like upon account of Conscience chose to eat no Flesh at all but to feed altogether upon Herbs that so this way of living of theirs might pass rather for a kind of Fast or Religious Abstinence than for a Legal Observance Thus St. Chrysostome and to the same purpose Theodoret and Theophylact. But if any one be not satisfied with this Account of that Business but will further contend that St. Paul here doth not only speak to the Case of Jewish Christians who were zealous for Moses's Law but also takes in the Case of some Gentile Christians at that time who upon a Pythagorean Principle they might have entertained were Averse to the eating any kind of Flesh as thinking all such Food to be Unclean They may notwithstanding what I have said enjoy their own Opinion For it is indifferent to our Controversie whether the Persons whose Case is here spoken to were Jews or Gentiles Only thus much appears plainly that the most of them were Jewish Christians who together with their Christianity had a Conscientious regard to the Law of Moses Secondly As for what is meant by Doubting in the Text The word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doth no where either in Scripture or any other Author signifie to Doubt but most usually to Discern or Distinguish or make a Difference as it is frequently used in the New Testament Vid. Matt. XVI 3. Acts XV. 9. 1 Cor. IV. 7. VI. 5. XI 29. The word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is sometimes taken Actively and then it hath the same Signification with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. to make a difference As is plain not only in St. Judes Text here quoted but in St. James Ch. II. 4. Where our English Translation hath indeed very well rendred the Apostles Sense thus Are ye not Partial But if they had truly rendred his Words they must have thus Translated Do ye not make a difference Again sometimes it is taken Passively and then the Signification of it is this to be Divided or Severed or Distinguished And when it is used in this Sense it sometimes happens that the English word Doubting doth conveniently enough express it Doubting being indeed nothing else but a Mans being Divided as to his own mind And accordingly in some places our Translators have thus Englished it though I believe in some of those more proper words might be found out to express its Sense But though in a Few Texts it be thus used in Scripture yet I do not find that any Profane Author did ever use it in this Sense of Doubting And therefore unless there be evident reason I do not know why we should depart from the natural and usual Signification of the Word in the Text we are now upon the Reader may be pleased to take notice that the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which we here translate He that doubteth doth as properly signifie to distinguish or make a difference as to Doubt or Hesitate And thus it is used both by Profane Writers and in Holy Scripture as particularly in the 22d of St. Jude's Epistle And of some have compassion making a difference 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the very word in the Text. Now considering the Apostles Argument in this Chapter is the Case of the Jewish Christians who were divided in their Perswasions about the Legal Observations some making a difference between clean and unclean Meats and such like things and others making none It seems every whit as proper and natural and more suitable to the scope of the Place to take the Word in this Sense in this place rather than in that other according to which it is usually translated So that the Text is thus to be rendred He that maketh a differenee between clean and unclean Meats If he do eat any thing which he judgeth to be unclean he is damned or condemned for so doing because he eateth not of Faith. And so probable is this rendring that our English Translators took care to put it in the Margin of our Bibles as may be seen by every one Nor doth it want good Authority for the Vulgar Latine thus translates the place and not only so but Erasmus Hentenius and generally all the Latine Expositors if we may believe Estius who yet himself interprets it the Common way Indeed I doubt not but this is the true Version of this Word in this Text. However I do not so much stand upon it as to preclude any man from the liberty of taking the other if he likes it better For though this way of rendering doth better serve our Purpose as quite putting an end to the Controversie Yet our Cause doth not so absolutely depend upon it but that we may very well allow of the common Translation as will appear hereafter Thirdly As for the Word Faith which is here used let it be taken notice of that when in the verse before the Text the Apostle speaks of having Faith and in the Text of eating without Faith or not of Faith and that whatsoever is not of Faith is Sin We are not to take Faith here in the large sense as it signifies a Belief in Jesus Christ or an Assent to Gods Revelations particularly those of the Gospel which is the usual Notion of Faith in the New Testament But only for a mans Assent to the Goodness or Lawfulness of any particular Action that he takes in hand So that to have Faith about an Action is to be perswaded that that Action may be Lawfully done in the present
were Perswaded they ought not as believing that the Law of Moses which had declared them Unclean was still in force or else believing them to be Unclean in themselves That this was indeed the Case here discussed seems very clear from the 2d and 5th Verses of this Chapter where the Apostle states it and more particularly from the 14th Verse where he gives a summary Resclution of it and in my Judgment the very same Resolution that he doth in the Text. I know saith he and am perswaded that there is nothing unclean of it self but to him that esteemeth any thing to be unclean to him it is unclean So that it feems the Person whose Case St. Paul speaks to was not uncertain or unresolved whether the Meats under Deliberation were clean or unclean but he was perswaded they were unclean he esteemed them to be such and he must of necessity do so so long as he believed the Law of Moses to be in force as by all that appears in this Chapter he did believe But may some say If this was the Case why then doth St. Paul use the word Doubting in the Text To Doubt of the unlawfulness of an Action is quite another thing than to be Perswaded of the unlawfulness of it In answer to this I refer my Reader to the Account I have before given of the Word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which may as properly be rendred He that maketh a difference between Meats as he that Doubteth about Meats Now if this Version be admitted the ground of this Objection is quite taken away And I see no reason why it should not be admitted since as I said it is as natural as the other and withal it makes the Apostles Sense to run more coherently with what he had said before But further Let if you please the common Translation be retained let the Text be interpreted of one that Doubteth and not of one that maketh a difference Yet still this will make nothing against what we have now said For it is undeniably plain that what St. Paul here calls Doubting is in our way of speaking a degree of Perswasion My meaning is this The Doubting which St. Paul here speaks of is not that where a mans Judgment is suspended upon account of the equal Probabilities on both sides of the Question which is the proper Notion of Doubting and that which we are now concerned with But he speaks of a Doubt strengthned with so many Probabilities that it wanted but very little of a Perswasion or to speak more properly it was a real Perswasion though with some mixture of Doubtfulness in it That is to say the man had so strong Convictions of the Unlawfulness of eating on the one hand and so little satisfaction about the Lawfulness of it on the other That if he was not fully perswaded that it was a sin to eat yet it appeared by many degrees more probable to him that it was a sin than that it was not That this now was the Case is evident beyond all exception from the words that follow He that doubteth saith the Text is condemned if he eat that is Condemned of his own Conscience as I shewed before Now how could that be if the man was not in some degree perswaded that his eating was unlawful It is certain no man can be further Condemned of his own Conscience for doing any Action than he doth believe that Action to be forbidden by some Law of God. To say therefore that a man is Condemned of his own Conscience for eating must of necessity imply that he doth believe his eating to be unlawful and if so it is certain he doth more than simply doubt whether it be lawful or no. Well But doth not the Apostle say in this very Chapter Let every one be fully perswaded in his own mind What is the meaning of that but that every one should assure himself that the Action he takes in hand is a lawful Action or 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 condemned if he eat because be eateth not of Faith or with a full perswasion There is therefore good Reason why we should interpret this Text in the proper Sense of Doubting the Apostle himself directing us so to do by this passage This is the most considerable Objection that can be made against our way of expounding this Text and probably it was with a respect to that passage that so many Interpreters have Translated it as they have done but whether they had any just reason from thence so to do is the Question Or rather I think it will be no Question with any one who attends either to the design or the words of the Apostle in that passage The passage is in the 5th Verse of this Chapter where the Apostle is giving an Account of the state of the present Controversie One man saith he esteemeth one day above another another man esteemeth every day alike Let every man be fully perswaded in his own mind So we render it but how truly I shall now examine It cannot well be conceived by the coming in of these words that St. Paul had any such thing in his mind when he writ them as we would now make them to express It was certainly none of his business in this place to oblige the contending Parties to get full perswasions in their several ways and then all would be right for there was too much of that already amongst them Neither was it his meaning here to tell them that if in any Case they acted without a full perswasion of the Lawfulness of the Action they sinned against Conscience for besides that this is certainly false it was nothing at all to his purpose But this was that which he design'd in this passage to perswade both the contending Parties quietly to permit each other to enjoy their several Opinions and Perswasions in those little matters which did no way concern their Duty without Censuring or Judging one another This now is a meaning that perfectly suits with all the other good advice he gives them in this Chapter and this meaning he doth express in as apt words as can be thought on One man esteemeth one day above another another man esteemeth every day alike Let every man be filled with his own mind Or satisfied with his own Perswasion The Original words are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 without the Preposition as is read in some good Copies 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Which saith Grotius is an Hebrew way of expression and signifies no more than this Quisque fruatur sua Sententia Let every Man enjoy his own Opinion Or as the Vulgar Latin most properly Translates Unusquisque in suo sensu abundet i. e. Let every one abound in his own Sense Or lastly as the Commentaries that go under the Name of St. Ambrose Unusquisque remittatur suis
this Because there is no Law of God which doth oblige us in all Cases to do that which is Best And if we be not bound to do always that which is Best we are not bound to do always that which is most Reasonable for certainly that which is Best is always most Reasonable And if we be not bound to do that which is most Reasonable much less are we bound to do that which is Safest because that which is Safest is not always either Best or most Reasonable And if there be no Law of God that doth oblige us to any of these things then it is certain we do not sin if we Act otherwise For where there is no Law there is no Transgression Now That the first of these Principles is true we have as good Proof as can be desired viz. the Authority of St. Paul who hath in the 7th of the first of the Corinthians thus determined And if that be true the other two must needs be so likewise because they follow from it by unavoidable Consequence Taking now this for granted I ask what Law doth a man Transgress that in a purely Doubtful Case chuseth either side indifferently without respect to what is Safest or most Reasonable Always supposing that the side he chuseth be not in it self evil and forbidden by God. I say according to these Principles he transgresseth no Law at all and consequently cannot properly be said to sin at all If the man be at all guilty it is upon one of these accounts viz. either because he Acteth against the dictate of his Conscience or because he Acteth against the Law of God in preferring that which is less reasonable and safe before that which is more so Now Upon the former account he is not at all guilty for his Conscience hath passed no Dictate no Verdict in this matter and therefore he cannot be supposed to act against any such Dictate or Verdict The man is in such a state that he either believes he may act as he doth without violation of his Duty Or at least he hath no belief to the contrary so that his Conscience doth not any way Condemn him And as for the other thing of his not chusing that side of the Doubtful Case which appeared to him most reasonable it is true if there was any Law of God which obliged him to make such a Choice he would be guilty of sin if he chose otherwise But now it doth not appear that there is any such Law of God. Nay so far from that that it appears from St. Paul that there is no such Law but that every man is left to his own liberty in this matter always supposing that he take care not to chuse or do any thing that he judgeth to be inconsistent with his Duty which in our Case we do likewise suppose But then having said this we must add further That though we here have concluded that no man in a Doubtful Case properly so called is strictly obliged by any Law of God under the penalty of sin to chuse one side more than another but may indifferently chuse either Yet in the first place Whoever doth believe or is perswaded in his own Mind either that he ought not at all to Act against a Doubt or that in every Doubtful Case he is bound to follow the safer side such a man so long as he so believes cannot without sin Act according to the Principles we have now laid down And Secondly We are far from encouraging any man to act thus hand over head in a Doubtful Case much less from commending him for so doing For though we say that strictly speaking a man doth not sin which way soever he Act in a purely doubtful Case yet on the other hand I think he is but in a low Dispensation as to Vertue and Goodness that never looks further into his Actions nor takes more care about them than only that they be not directly sinful He that is heartily Good will with St. Paul not only consider what things are Lawful but what things are Expedient and do Edifie It will not ordinarily be sufficient to ingage such a man in an Action to satisfie him that he may do that Action without transgressing any Law of God But he will examine whether the doing or forbearing the Action doth more serve the ends of Vertue and Charity And accordingly as that appears to him so will he determine his Choice In a word The Better and the more Vertuous any man is the more delicate and tender sense will he have not only of that which the Law of God hath precisely made his Duty and so in a proper Sence doth oblige his Conscience but also of every thing that is Reasonable and Excellent and Praise-worthy So that it will really grate upon his mind to do many things which in strict speaking cannot be accounted unlawful or forbidden And thus it is in our present Cas If we suppose a man to be a Devout Christian and a sincere Lover of God he will not be able to prevail with himself in a Case where he Doubteth to chuse either side indiscriminately though if he should I do not know as I said before what Law of God he transgresseth but he will weigh and consider the Reasons on both sides and that which appears to him after such Consideration to be most reasonable and conducing to Gods Glory and his own and the Worlds good that shall have the preference To come to a conclusion The sum of what I have now said is this As Conscience is the immediate Guide of our Actions So the Rule by which Conscience it self is to be guided is the Law of God and nothing else Though therefore we cannot be safe in following our Conscience where our Conscience is not guided by the Law of God because as I have often said our false Judgment of things doth not cancel our Obligation to act according to what the Laws of God require of us unless we can justly plead unblameable Ignorance of those Laws Yet on the other hand where-ever Conscience tells us that me must do this Action because the Law of God hath commanded it we must do it or we sin And again Where-ever Conscience tells us that we must avoid this Action because the Law of God hath forbidden it we must forbear that Action or we sin But if Conscience cannot say that this Action is commanded or forbidden there we are not tyed under the penalty of sinning either to do or to forbear that Action But yet if a Mans Conscience should thus suggest to him Though I cannot say directly that this Action is a Duty or that it is a sin because I am at a loss how the Law of God stands as to this matter and consequently I cannot lay any direct Obligation upon you either way yet my advice is that you would chuse this way rather than the other For this way all things considered appears most fit and
reasonable to be chosen for there is more Probability that this is the right way than the other or there is less harm though you should be mistaken in going this way than the other Now in this Case though a man be not properly obliged under the Guilt of Sin to obey his Conscience because Conscience doth not propose the Choice to him under that Condition yet if he be a Wise and a Good man he will undoubtedly chuse that side which Conscience all things considered hath represented to him to be the most fit and reasonable to be chosen And thus much concerning our Fourth and last General Head. Thus have I largely discussed the Case of a Doubting Conscience in general and answered all the Considerable Enquiries that can be made about it I am not sensible that I have left any material difficulty in this Argument untouched though I am very sensible I have said a great deal more than needed in order to the Resolution of that Case for the sake of which I undertook this Discourse But I intended such a discussion of this Argument as would serve for all other Cases as well as that I do not know whether it be needful to make a particular Application of what I have said upon a Doubting Conscience to the Case of our present Dissenters However it will not be amiss if I offer something towards it if it be but to save the Reader who is concerned in that Case the Labour and Trouble of doing it The Case which I am to speak to is briefly this There are several Persons that are unsatisfied about the Lawfulness of our Communion as it is established and enjoined and that upon several Accounts Some perhaps Doubt of the Lawfulness of all Forms of Prayer Others about the Lawfulness of our Form. Others Doubt about the Lawfulness of our Ceremonies or our way of Administring the Sacrament And others it may be about other things None of them can indeed say that any of these things do go against their Conscience or that they believe the use of them to be unlawful For that is the Case of a Resolved Conscience with which we have nothing here to do But they are undetermined and uncertain whether they be Lawful or no and so long as they continue under this Suspence of Judgment they dare not join in our Worship fearing they would sin against God if they should Now of those that thus Doubt there may be two sorts There are some perhaps that have only a Single Doubt in this matter That is to say They make a Doubt whether they may Lawfully join with us so long as those suspected Conditions are required of them But they make no Doubt but are very well satisfied that they may Lawfully Separate from us Again there are others that Doubt on both sides as they have good Reason to do That is As they Doubt on one hand whether the Terms of our Communion be not sinful So they Doubt on the other hand whether it be not sinful to Separate upon account of those Terms Now of these likewise there may be two sorts Some perhaps are equally Doubtful whether the Terms of our Communion be lawful or no. Others Doubt unequally that is are more inclined to believe that they are Sinful than that they are Lawful That now which is to be enquired into is What is most Reasonable and Adviseable in Point of Conscience to be done in each of these Cases Now as to the first of these Cases where a man hath only a Doubt on one side and that is Whether he may lawfully Communicate with us but he hath no Doubt that he may lawfully Separate To this I say two things First That the mans Doubting only on one side in this matter doth not make it more safe for him to Separate than if he had Doubted on both sides Because indeed if he must Doubt at all it is his Duty he is bound to Doubt on both sides and he is guilty of gross and criminal Ignorance of the Laws of God if he do not And if so then his Doubting only on one side doth not alter the Case but it must have the same Resolution as if it was a Double Doubt properly so called If it be said that it is a constant Rule of a Doubting Conscience and we have allowed it as such that in Cases where a man hath only a Doubt on one side of an Action it is more safe to chuse that side on which he hath no Doubt than that other concerning which he Doubts I do readily grant it But then it is to be remembred that that Rule is always intended and doth only obtain in such Cases where a man may certainly without danger of sinning forbear that Action of the Lawfulness of which he Doubts though he cannot without danger of sinning do the Action so long as he Doubts about it But now in our Case here it is evident to all men that are not wilfully blind that as there may be a danger of Sinning if a man should conform with a Doubting Conscience So there is certainly a danger of Sinning nay and we say a much greater danger if a man do not conform So that that Rule hath here no place at all The truth is Our Case if it be rightly put is this A man is here supposed to reason thus with himself I am very well satisfied in my own mind and I make no Doubt at all that I may Lawfully and without danger of Sin cut my self off from the Communion of the Church which yet by his Christianity he is bound to maintain and preserve as far as he can and I may likewise lawfully and without danger of sinning live in a constant Disobedience and Refractariness to all that Authority that God hath set over me to which yet by as plain Laws as any are in Nature or the Gospel he is bound to be subject I say I am satisfied in my own mind that I may lawfully do both these things But I am very unsatisfied and doubtful whether in my present Circumstances it is not my Duty thus to do so as that I shall Sin if I do not What now would any Prudent man say to this Case Why certainly he would say this That he who can Doubt after this fashion is either a very Ill man or a very Ignorant one And that such a man doth a great deal more stand in need of good Advice and wholsome Instructions about the plain Duties of Christianity than of Rules and Directions how to behave himself in Doubtful Cases Because indeed the best Rules of that kind are not to his Case so long as he continues thus Ignorant And if he should observe them yet that would not justifie his Acting if it should indeed prove contrary to the Law of God because it was both in his power and it was his Duty to know better A mans Right proceeding according to the Rules of a Doubting Conscience in a
Case where he is entangled by a wilfully Erroneous one will no more discharge him from Sin as to his Soul if he do an evil Action than the Second Concoction though never so regular can rectifie the Errors of the First as to his Body But Secondly Though that which I have now offered be the proper Answer to the Case before us Yet there is this further to be said to it viz. Though we should suppose that the Law of God had not obliged us to keep the Unity of the Church or to obey our lawful Superiors but had left it as an indifferent matter and that there was no danger at all in forbearing these things but the only danger was in doing them So that the Doubt about Conformity should have perfectly the nature of a Single Doubt as it is put in the Case I say now even upon this Supposition it will bear a just Dispute whether Conformity or Non-conformity be the more eligible side Nay I say further that if the Rule I laid down about a Single Doubt be true it will appear that as things now stand it is more reasonable for a man to Obey the Laws and Communicate with the Church so long as he hath only a bare Doubt about the Lawfulness of these things than to Disobey and Separate For thus I argue Though in a Single Doubt the Rule be That a man should chuse that side of an Action concerning which he hath no Doubt rather than that concerning which he Doubts Yet as was said before that Rule is always to be understood with this Proviso that all other Considerations in the Case be equal If it should happen that a very great Good may be compassed or a very great Evil may be avoided by Acting on the Doubtful side That very Consideration hath weight enough with a Wise man to turn the Balance on that side and to make that which abstractedly considered was a Doubtful Case to be clear and plain when it comes cloathed with such Circumstances As I gave Instances in the Case of Usury and Law-Suits And twenty more might be added to them if it were to any purpose If this now be admitted for Truth we have a plain Resolution of the Case before us and that is this There are so many great Advantages both to the Kingdom and to a mans self to be obtained by Worshipping God in the way of the Church and likewise so many both Publick and Private Mischiefs and Inconveniences that are consequent upon Separation That if in any Case these Considerations have weight enough to Over-balance a simple Doubt about the Lawfulness of an Action they will certainly have sufficient weight in this Case And that man who is not swayed by them doth not Act so reasonably as he might do For my part I should think it very foolishly done of any man that so long as he is utterly uncertain whether he be in the right or in the wrong as every one that Doubteth is should be so confident of his Point as to venture upon it no less a stake than the Peace of the Kingdom where he lives and the Security of the Religion Established and withal his own Ease and Liberty and lastly the Fortunes also of his Posterity And yet such a wise Venture as this doth every one among us make that upon the account of a bare Doubt about the Lawfulness of the things enjoined in our Communion doth persist in disobedience to the Government and Separation from the Church I wish this were well considered by our Doubting Dissenters They are wise enough as to the World in other matters it is to be desired that they would be as wise in this And if they were I dare say it would not at all prejudice their Wisdom as to the other World. It will be but little either to their Comfort or their Reputation at the long run to have it said of them that besides the Disturbance they have all along occasioned to the Publick Peace and Unity they have also brought their Estates and Families into danger of Ruine by the just Prosecutions of Law they have drawn upon themselves and all this for the sake of a Cause which they themselves must confess they are altogether uncertain and unresolved about But this will appear much clearer when we have set the Doubt about Conformity upon the right Foot viz. Considered it as a Double Doubt as indeed it is in its own Nature Which I come now to do In the Second place There are other Dissenters who as they have good reason do Doubt on both sides of this Question As they Doubt on one hand whether it be not a sin to Conform to our Worship because there are several things in it which they suspect to be unlawful So on the other hand they Doubt whether it be not their Duty to Conform to it because the Laws of the Church and of the Land do require them so to do And of these as I said there are likewise two sorts Some perhaps are equally Doubtful whether the Terms of our Communion are Lawful or no and consequently must Doubt equally whether they be bound to Conform or no. Others Doubt unequally That is to say of the Two it appears more probable to them that our Communion is Sinful than that it is a Duty Now as to the first of these Cases The Answer is very short and it is this We have before proved by many Arguments that in a Case of a Pure Doubt about the Lawfulness of an Action where the Probabilities on both sides are pretty equal In that Case the Command of Authority doth always turn the Balance on its own side so as that it is not only reasonable for the man to do that in Obedience to Authority of the Lawfulness of which he Doubteth but it is his Duty to do it he sins if he do not For this I refer my Reader to the Third General Head of this Discourse The only difficulty therefore is in the other Case where the Doubt is unequal And here the Case is this As the man apprehends himself in danger of sinning if he do not come to Church and obey the Laws So he apprehends himself in a greater danger of sinning if he do because it doth appear more probable to him that our Communion is Sinful than that it is a Duty And a greater Probability caeteris paribus is always to be chosen before a less But to this likewise we are ready provided of an Answer from the foregoing Discourse viz. That though it should be supposed that in such a Case as this where the Ballance is so far inclined one way the Authority of our Superiors alone will not have weight enough to cast it on its own side Yet in this particular Case of Church Communion there are so many other Arguments to be drawn from the Consideration of the greater Sin and the more dreadful Consequences of disobeying the Laws than of obeying them as will