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
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
with the fewest Absurdities and evil Consequences of all sorts and doth best serve all the Interests Spiritual and Temporal taken both together that a Wise and a Good Man can propose to himself I say if any man do mean this by the Safer side I do readily agree with him that it will for ever and in all Cases be a True and a Wise and a Good Rule nay I add the only one to a Doubting Conscience to follow the safer side But then in this sense of Safety the safer side and the more Reasonable is all one thing And consequently this Rule of following the safer side and that I before laid down of following the more Reasonable are the same in sense though differently expressed Only I think this latter way of expression is more plain and less liable to misconstruction and therefore I chose it But it is indifferent to me how Men word things so long as we agree in our Sense II. Having thus given an Account of the General Rule by which a man is to determine himself in Doubtful Cases I come now in the Second place to treat of the several Heads or Sorts of Doubtful Cases wherein a Mans Conscience is concerned and to make Application of this Rule to them and this it will be no hard matter to do admitting the Grounds we have before laid down There is no Doubt wherein Conscience is concerned but it will of necessity fall under one of these two Sorts It is either a Single Doubt or a Double one We call that a Single Doubt when a man doubts only on one side of the Action but is very well satisfied as to the other As for Instance he doubts concerning this or the other particular Action whether it be Lawful for him to do it But on the other side he hath no Doubt but is very well assured that he may Lawfully let it alone Or on the contrary he is very well satisfied that the Action is Lawful and that he may do it But he doubts whether Gods Law hath not made it a Duty so that he cannot Lawfully omit it This is that which we call a Single Doubt We call that a Double Doubt where a man doubts on both sides of an Action that is to say he doubts on one side whether he be not bound to do this Action Gods Law for any thing he knows made it a Duty But on the other side so is the Action circumstantiated with respect to him or he with respect to it that he doubts whether he be not bound to forbear the Action as it is now presented to him Gods Law having for any thing he knows forbid it So that he is at a loss what to do because he fears he may sin whether he doth the Action or doth it not I say it will be impossible to put any doubtful Case wherein a mans Conscience is concerned which will not fall under one of these two Heads I. Now as to the Case of a Single Doubt we may thus apply the General Rule That when a man doubts only on one side of an Action there it is more Reasonable to chuse that side of the Action concerning which he hath no Doubt than the other concerning which he Doubts supposing all other Considerations be equal And here comes in that famous Maxim which hath obtained both among Christians and Heathens Quod dubitas ne feceris which with the restriction I have now mentioned will for ever be good Advice in all Cases of this Nature It must needs be unreasonable to venture upon any Action where a man hath the least Fear or Suspicion that it is possible he may transgress some Law of God by it when it is in his power to Act without any Fear or Suspicion of that kind supposing all along this Consideration of the possibility of offending by this Action be not over-ballanced and so the Fear of it removed by other Considerations which the Circumstances of the Action do suggest Thus for Instance Here is a Man Doubts whether it be allowable in a Christian to drink a Health or put out Money to Interest or to go to Law as having conversed with such Men or such Books as do condemn these Practices and that not without some Colour from the Word of God. The man is not indeed so convinced by their Discourses as to have taken up any Opinion or Perswasion that these Practices are unlawful nor would he censure any man that uses them because he sees there are as Good Men and for any thing he knows as Good Arguments for the other side But he is not so clear in his judgment about these Points as to be able to pronounce any thing positively concerning them either way He cannot say that he believes them Lawful though he is not perswaded that they are unlawful which is the true state of a Doubting mind Now in these and all other such like Cases the Rule is plain That while a mans judgment continues thus in suspence it is more Reasonable for him to forbear these Practices For there is no pretence of obligation upon him from Gods Law to engage in any of them and why should he rashly throw himself into danger by venturing upon an Action concerning which he is uncertain whether it be Lawful or no He runs no hazard by forbearing these things but if he practise them he doth Thus far is right But then as I said this is always to be understood with this Proviso Caeteris paribus For if there should happen to be such other Considerations in the Action as have force enough to over-ballance this Consideration of Uncertainty it will then be reasonable to chuse that side of the Action concerning which I did before doubt rather than that of which I had no doubt at all Thus if the Man that makes a Question about any of the three things I before mentioned should light into such Circumstances that for Instance he must either drink such a single Health or a quarrel is like to ensue nay and that perhaps to the danger of some of the Lives of the Company Or again that he has no means of improving his Money in which his whole Fortune consists in any other way but by that of Usury so that he and his Family must in time starve unless they be maintain'd by this Course Or lastly if an Orphan be trusted to his Care and the Estate of that Orphan is so entangled that he must be put upon the necessity either of waging a Law Suit for the clearing it or suffering his near Relation committed to his Charge to be defrauded of his Right I say if the Cases happen to be thus circumstantiated he that before doubted in General whether it was Lawful to drink a Health or to put out Money to Usury or to ingage in Law Suits may I should think certainly satisfie himself that it is not only Lawful but Expedient in this particular Case notwithstanding his General Doubt to
Consiliis Let every one be left to his own Counsels And to the same sense also both St. Chrysostome and Theodoret do expound this passage This Interpretation though it be very different from that in our English Bible yet expresseth the Signification of the Original Text as well as that and withal hath better Authority to recommend it but that which we chiefly stand upon is that the Subject Matter and the scope of the Apostle doth necessarily require this Interpretation For in truth If this passage be rendred the common way so as that it shall import that every Man in every Case is to be fully perswaded in his own mind I do not know how the Precept here given can be supposed to be either Reasonable or Possible It is certainly no more in every Mans Power to be satisfied about all his Doubts than it is to believe or disbelieve what he pleases When there appears Reason of Doubting it is in vain to command a Man not to Doubt Nay it is as much a Mans Duty to Doubt and to keep his Judgment in suspence when the weight of Probability is on both sides equal as it is to believe or to disbelieve upon clear Evidence Or rather in that Case a Man cannot chuse but Doubt He cannot reasonably nay he cannot possibly do otherwise I think by what hath been said it doth plainly appear that this Text of St. Paul we are upon viz. He that Doubteth is condemned if he eat hath nothing to do with a Doubting Conscience in our Sense but only with a resolved one and consequently that the Argument which is brought from hence against our Assertion is nothing at all to the purpose because it is grounded upon a false Exposition of the Text. But though this is as I think the true Answer to this Argument and the Answer indeed which I mainly stand upon Yet there is another Answer given to it by the Casuists which because it is the Answer that our Learned Bishop Sanderson thought fit to pitch upon I ought not to pass it by without mention nor if I can without some improvement I must confess if we do admit this Answer the Authority and Obligation of a Doubting Conscience will be set higher than I do in this Discourse suppose it But however it may be a good Answer to the Dissenters because it unties the difficulty upon their own Principles The Answer is this 2. In the Second place Allowing that the Man whose Case St. Paul speaks to in this Text was really a Doubting Person and not one that was Perswaded as we have hitherto supposed Yet it doth by no means follow that because this Man was guilty of Sin and Condemned for eating those Meats of the Lawfulness of which he Doubted Therefore a Man that Obeys Authority in an Instance where he Doubts of the Lawfulness of the Command that such a Man Sins and is Condemned for so doing This I say doth not at all follow For there is a vast Disparity in the Cases and to argue from one to the other is to argue from a Particular to an Universal or from one Particular to another without respect to the different Circumstances of each Case which is against all the Rules of Logick If St. Paul had said He that Doubteth is Damned if he Act there had been some pretence for making his Sentence an universal Proposition so as to extend to all Doubting Men in all Cases But now only saying He that Doubteth is Damned if he eat it shews that he only spoke to the Particular Case that was before him and that other Cases are no farther concerned in his Proposition than as they do agree in Circumstances with the Case he there speaks to Now the Case the Apostle there treats of and That which we are now concerned about are so far from any way agreeing in the main Circumstances by which a Man is to measure the Goodness or the Badness of an Action that there cannot be two Doubtful Cases put that are more different as I shall now shew If St. Paul do at all here speak to the Case of a Doubting Man he speaks of one that Acted Doubtingly in a matter where it was in his own Power to Act without a Doubt That is He was in such Circumstances that he knew he might certainly without sin refuse to eat those Meats concerning which he doubted for there was no colour of obligation upon him to eat them But yet in this Case where he was perfectly at Liberty to let alone for the serving some evil unwarrantable ends he would not chuse that side which was safe and where he need fear no sin which was to forbear but would chuse that side that was Doubtful that is would run a needless hazard of transgressing some Law of God. It is of such a Man and in such a Case as this that St. Paul speaks when he saith He that doubteth is condemned if he eat Supposing indeed that his words are at all to be expounded in this Sense But now because it is thus in this Case and in all such like if you please Doth it therefore follow from these words that a Man that is in other Circumstances that is not at Liberty to chuse his own way as not being at his own disposal but under the Direction and Government of Authority That this man sins and is condemned if he obey the Orders of his Superiours when he is Doubtful of the Lawfulness of the thing in which he expresseth his Obedience No by no means For this Case hath a quite different Consideration In the former Case there was only danger on one side and that was in Acting and the Man might forbear if he pleased and that without any danger But in the other Case there is danger on both sides and the man runs at least as great a hazard in forbearing the Action nay we say a much greater as if he should do it So that undeniably unless we will make one Rule to serve for all Cases though never so different which is the absurdest thing in the World For any thing that St. Paul hath here said to the contrary this latter man may not only without sin do the thing he doubts of but is bound to do it Whereas if the other man spoken of in the Text should do the Action he doubts of it might be a sin in him But further That St. Paul meant not to extend his Proposition to all Doubtful Cases but only to such Cases as he here treats of is pretty evident from the Reason that he gives why he that eateth Doubtingly sins in so doing viz. Because he eateth not of Faith. He doth not say He that Doubteth is Condemned if he eat because he eateth with a Doubting Conscience If he had said so I grant the Reason of his Proposition would have reached all Doubting men in all Cases but this is that which he saith He that Doubteth is condemned if he eat because he eateth
not of Faith. So that if there be any Doubtful Cases wherein a Man may Act with Faith notwithstanding his Doubt I hope it will be allowed that those Cases are excepted out of St. Paul's Proposition Now that there are such Cases and that our Case of Obeying Authority is one of them I thus prove Whosoever so Acts as that he is satisfied in his own mind that what he doth is according to his Duty in the present Circumstances Such a Man Acts with Faith in reference to that Action This is evident from the very Notion of Faith as it is here spoken of of which I have before given an Account But now it is very possible that a Man may have a Doubt concerning the Lawfulness of an Action and yet be in such Circumstances as that he shall be satisfied that is very reasonable and agreeable to his Duty nay as the Case may be that he is really bound to do that Action concerning which he thus Doubts rather than not to do it Because the not doing that Action all things considered appears to him more dangerous or attended with worse Consequences This now being granted it undeniably follows That where-ever a man lights into these Circumstances he is not a Sinner even according to the strictest Sense of these words though he Act with some kind of Doubt because he Acts in Faith That is he is resolved in his own Conscience that thus it behoveth him to act in the present Case and that it would be unreasonable or sinful to act otherwise So that let our Adversaries make the most of St. Paul's words that they can it is a very Illogical Inference to say That whoever Acts with a Doubt upon his Conscience in any Case is guilty of Sin and much more is it so to affirm it in our present Case of Obeying Authority For it is certain that many Men are and I believe all Men may be satisfied that in a purely doubtful Case it is not only more reasonable but their Duty to Obey their Superiours Well But it will be said Do not we here talk contradictions Can a Man have Faith about an Action that is be resolved in his own Conscience that such an Action is to be done or may lawfully be done and yet Doubt concerning it at the same time I Answer This is so far from being a Contradiction that it is a Case that every day happens where a Man hath a Doubt on both sides as it is in the Instance before us A man often hath very great Doubts of the Lawfulness of this or the other Action when he considers the Action in general But yet when he comes to weigh the Circumstances he is in and the Reasons he hath in those Circumstances for the doing the Action he may be perswaded that it is better for him to do the Action than to let it alone notwithstanding all the Doubts he hath about it That is Though he doubt of the Lawfulness of the Action it self considered without his present Circumstances yet as it comes Circumstantiated to him he doth not doubt but it may be lawfully done by him But of this I have spoke largely before in my Explication of the Rule of a Doubting Conscience But is not all Doubting contrary to Faith I answer No it is not For such kind of Doubting as we here speak of doth we see very well consist with Faith. My meaning is it is not necessary in order to a Mans having Faith about an Action that all his Doubts concerning that Action should be destroyed it is abundantly sufficient that they be over-ballanced That which I would say is this Wherever a man hath such a degree of Perswasion touching any Action he is deliberating about that he believes it more advisable to a reasonable man all things considered to do that Action than to forbear it such a man hath all the Faith that is needful to the doing that Action with a safe Conscience though in the mean time he may have such Doubts concerning that Action as will perhaps be too hard for him to resolve and will create him likewise some trouble and uneasiness in the doing of it Though indeed to speak properly I think these ought not any longer to be called Doubts after they are thus over-ruled or over ballanced but rather to go under the Name and Notion of pure Scruples which the Casuists of all Perswasions do not only allow but advise that a man should act against In plain English That Doubtfulness about an Action which St. Paul speaks of and which he Censures as a sin was such a Doubtfulness as after the Action was done rendred the man Self-condemned his Conscience could not but reproach him for doing as he did But now in our Case the Man is not at all Self-condemned because he hath the Testimony of his Conscience that he hath acted according to the best of his Judgment and Discretion Though he acts with a Doubt yet he is satisfied he hath made the most reasonable Choice that he could in his Circumstances And wherever a man doth so he both acts in Faith and without any danger of Condemnation from his own Conscience So that after all the Bustle that is made about doing or forbearing an Action with a Doubting Conscience you see there is no great intricacy in the Case nor any necessity of sinning on both hands always supposing a man to be Sincere and Honest For if he be really so he will always do that which he judges most according to his Duty or at least that which he judges to be consistent with it and wherever a man doth thus it is certain he Acts with a safe Conscience notwithstanding any Doubt he may have about the Action Because more than the former a man cannot do and more than the latter he is not bound to do As for what sins an Erroneous Conscience may ingage a man in or what troublesome Reflections a Melancholly Imagination may occasion to him in these Cases I am not to answer for them they are of another Consideration IV. Having thus largely treated of the Nature of a Doubting Conscience and of the Rules by which a man is to Act whenever it happens and that both when he is left at his own Liberty and when he is under the Commands of others All that remains to be done is to speak something about the Authority or Obligation of a Doubting Conscience which is our Fourth and last general Head. But in truth the Discussion of this might very well be spared after what I have said relating to this Argument in several places of the foregoing Discourse particularly under my last Head. However I shall endeavour to give some Account of this Point though I intend it a very short one because indeed what I have to offer is not so much any new matter as an Application of the Principles I have before laid down to our present purpose The Point in question is concerning the Authority