The first Sermon.
[...]

_ [...] [Page 2] Meats, accounting them Clean or Unclean; and of Days, accounting them Holy or Servile, according as they stood under the Levitical Law. These latter St. Paul calleth Verse 1. [...], Weak in the Faith: those for­mer then must by the Law of Opposition be [...]. Rom. 15. 1. strong in the Faith.

It would have become both the one sort, and the other (notwithstanding2 they differed in their private Iudgments, yet) to have preserved the com­mon Peace of the Church, and laboured the 2 Cor. 10. 8. edification, not the ruine one of another; the strong by affording faithful instruction to the Consciences of the weak; and the weak, by allowing favourable construction to the acti­ons of the strong. But whilst either measured other by themselves, neither one nor other did Gal. 2. 14. [...], as our Apostle else­where speaketh, Walk uprightly according to the truth of the Gospel. Faults and offences there were on all hands. The Strong faulty, in contemning the Weak; the Weak faulty, in condemning the Strong. The Strong proudly scorned the weak, as silly and superstitious, for making scruple at some such things as themselves firmly believed were Lawful: The weak rashly censured the Strong, as Prophane and Irreligious, for adventuring on some such things as themselves deeply suspected were unlawful. The blessed A­postle, desirous all things should be done in the Church in love and 1 Cor. 14. 26. unto edification, Cajeran in locum. aequâ lance, and Bulling. in locum. eódem Charitatis moderamine, as Interpre­ters speak, taketh upon him to arbitrate, and to mediate in the business; and like a just Umpire Job 9. 33. layeth his hand upon both parties, unpartially sheweth them their several oversights, and beginneth to draw them to a fair and honourable composition: as thus, The strong shall remit some­what of his superciliousness, in disesteeming and despising the Weak; and the Weak he shall abate something of his edge and acrimony in judging and condemning the Strong. If the Parties will stand to this Order, it will prove a blessed agreement; for so shall brotherly Love be maintain­ed, Scandals shall be removed, the Christian Church shall be edified, and God's Name shall be glorified. This is the scope of my Text, and of the whole Chapter.

In the three first Verses whereof, there is [...] and [...]. First,3. there is [...], in the first Verse; the Proposal of a general Doctrine, as touching the usage of weak ones; with whom the Church is so to deal, as that it neither give offence to, nor take offence at the weakness of any. [Him that is weak in the Faith receive you, but not to doubtful Disputations.] Next▪ there is [...], in the second Verse, a Declaration of the former ge­neral Proposal, by instancing in a particular case, touching the difference of Meats. There is one man strong in the Faith; he is infallibly resolved▪ there is no meat Verse 14. unclean of it self, or (if received with thankfulness and sobriety) 1 Cor. 10. 23. unlawful; and because he knoweth he standeth upon a sure ground, Verse 2. [...], he is confident he may eat any thing, and he useth his Liberty accordingly, eating indifferently 1 Cor. 10. 27. of all that is set before him, making no question for Conscience sake, [One man believeth he may eat all things.] There is another man weak in the Faith; he standeth yet un­resolved and doubtful, whether some kinds of Meats, as namely those forbidden in the Law, be clean; or he is rather carried with a strong suspicion that they are unclean; out of which timorousness of Judgment, he chuseth to forbear those Meats, and contenteth himself with the fruits of the Earth; [Another who is weak, eateth Herbs.] This is Species facti, this is the case. Now the question is, In this case what is to be done, for the avoidance of scandal, and the maintainance of Christian Charity? And this question my Text resolveth in this third Verse: wherein is contained4 [Page 3] [...], St. Paul's judgment, or his counsel rather and advice, upon the Case, Let not him that eateth, despise, &c. The remainder of the Verse and of the Chapter being spent in giving reasons of the judgment, in this and a­nother like case, concerning the difference and observation of days.

I have made choice to intreat at this time of St. Paul's advice, as use­ful for this Place and Auditory, and the present Assembly. Which advice as the Parties and the faults are, is also two-fold. The Parties two: He that eateth, that is, the Strong; and he that eateth not, that is, the Weak. The Faults likewise two: The strong mans fault, that is, Literally setting at nought; so it is translated, Luke 23. 11. and the Latin Translation in Tertullian readeth here fitly to the Greek, Qui manducat, né nullificet non manducantem. Tert. de Jejun. adversus Psych. c. 15. [...], de­spising of his brothers Infirmity; and the weak mans fault, that is, [...], judging of his Brothers liberty. Proportionably, the parts of the advice, accommodated to the Parties and their Faults, are two. The one, for the Strong, that he despise not, Let not him that eateth, despise him that eateth not. The other, for the Weak, that he judge not, Let not him that eateth not, judge him that eateth. Of which, when I shall have spoken somewhat in their general use, I shall by Gods assistance proceed by way of Application, to inquire how far the differences in our Church, for con­forming, and not conforming, agree with the present case of eating, and not eating; and consequently how far forth St. Pauls advice in this case of eating, and not eating, ought to rule us in the cases of conforming, and not conforming in point of Ceremony. And first, of the former Rule, or Branch of the Advice, Let not him that eateth, despise him that eat­eth not.

The terms whereby the Parties are charactered, He that eateth, and he 5. that eateth not, have in the opening of the Case been already so far unfold­ed, as that I shall not need any more to remember you, that by him that eateth, must be understood the strong in Faith, and by him that eateth not, the weak. And so reducing the words, ab Hypothesi ad Thesin, this part of the advice [Let not him that eateth, despise him that eateth not,] beareth sense, as if the Apostle had said [Let not the strong in Faith despise the weak,] Weak ones are easily despised; Strong ones are prone to de­spise: and yet despising is both a grievous sin in the despiser, and a dange­rous scandal to the despised. In all which respects, it was but needful the Holy Ghost should lesson us, not to despise one anothers weakness. Let not him that eateth, despise him that eateth not.

Weakness and Smallness, be it in what kind soever, is the fittest object to6. provoke contempt. As we travel by the way, if a fierce Mastiff set upon us, we think it time to look about and bestir our selves for defence; but we take no notice of the little Currs that bark at us, but despise them. When Goliah saw little David make towards him, 1 Sam. 17. the Text saith 1 Sam. 17. 42. He disdained him, for he was but a Youth. And St. Paul charging Timothy so to behave himself in the Church of God, as that none should 1 Tim. 4. 12. despise his Youth, implieth, that Youth is obvious to contempt, and like enough to be despised. And though Eccl. 9. 16. Wisdom is better than Strength, yet Solomon tells us, The poor mans Wisdom is despised, and his words are not heard, Eccles. 9. Psal. 119. 141. I am small and of no reputation, saith David, Psal. 119. And our Saviours Caveat in the Gospel is especially concerning little ones, as most open to contempt: Mat. 18. 10. Take heed that ye despise not any of these little ones. But of all other, that weakness is most contemptible, which is seen in the faculties of the understanding Soul: when men are indeed weak in Apprehension, weak in Iudgment, weak in Discretion; or at leastwise are thought so. ‘Far from any real weakness this way or any other, was our blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, Col. 2. 3. In whom were hid all the [Page 4] treasures of Wisdom and Knowledge; yet because upon conference with him, he seemed such unto Herod, not answering any of his questions, nor that expectation which the fame of his Miracles had raised of him in Herod, Herod took him for some silly simple fellow, and accordingly used him; for he Luk. 23. 11. [...]. set him at nought, and mocked him, and put him in [...]. ib. a white Coat, as if he had been some Fool, and sent him back as he came, Luke 23.’ And of this nature is the weakness my Text hath to do withal, a weakness in Iudgment; or as it is, Verse 1. a weakness in Faith. Where, by Faith, we are not to understand that justifying Faith, whereby the heart of a true Believer layeth fast hold on the gracious promises of God, and the precious merits of Jesus Christ, for the remission of sins; nor by weakness in Faith, that [...], wherewith the Apostles are Matth 8. 26. 14. 31. & 16. 8. sometimes charged; when the Faith of a true Believer is sore shaken with temptations of incredulity and distrust. But by Faith we are to understand an Fides hîc sig­nificat persua­sionem de usu rerum indiffe­rentium, per Synecdochen generis. Piscat. Schol in Rom. 14. 1. Hi­storical Faith only, which is nothing else but a firm and secure assent of the judgment unto Doctrinal Truths in matter of Faith or Life; and by weak­ness in such Faith, a doubtfulness and irresolution of Judgment concern­ing some divine truths appertaining unto the doctrine of Faith or Life; and namely, concerning the just extent of Christian Liberty, and the indifferent or not indifferent nature or use of some things. Which weakness of Judg­ment in Faith bewraying it self outwardly in a nice, and scrupulous, and timorous forbearance of some things, for fear they should be unlawful, which yet in truth are not so, but indifferent, doth thereby expose the Person in whom such weakness is, to the contempt and despisings of such as are of more confirmed and resolved judgments, and are stronger in the Faith.

Weakness then is in it self contemptible; yet not more than Strength is7. contemptuous. Passive contempt is the unhappiness of the weak; but active, the fault of the strong. They that find truly, or but overweeningly con­ceit in themselves abilities, either of a higher nature, or in a greater mea­sure than in other men, be it in any kind whatsoever. It is strange to see with what scornful state they can trample upon their weaker and inferiour Brethren, and look upon them (if yet they will at all vouchsafe a look) from alost, as upon things below them; which is properly and literally to despise. For so much the very words [...], among the Greeks, and a­mong the Latins, despicere, do import. The Pharisee, it is like, cast such a disdainful look upon the poor Publican, when, in Contempt he called him, Luk. 18. 9, 11. Iste Publicanus! Sure I am, that Parable was spoken of purpose con­cerning such as trusted in their own Righteousness, and [...]. Luk. 18. 9. despised others, Luk. 18. And they are ever the likeliest thus to despise others, that conceit something in themselves more than others. Wealth, honour, strength beauty, birth, friends, alliance, authority, power, wit, learning, eloquence, reputation, any trifle can leaven our thoughts (partial as they are towards our selves) and swell us, and heave us up above our Brethren; and because we think we do over-top them, we think we may over-look them too, and despise them as vulgar and contemptible. Agar could despise Sarah; the Bond-servant, the Free-woman; the Maid, her Mistress; only for a little fruitfulness of the Womb beyond her; because Gen. 16. 4, 5. She saw that she had conceived, and her Mistress was Barren, Gen. 16. All strength and eminency then, we see, be it in any little sorry thing, is apt to breed in men a despising of their weak­er and meaner Brethren; but none more than this strength of Knowledge, and of Faith, wherewith we now deal. It should be quite otherwise, our knowledge should praeserre facem, hold the light before us, and help us for [Page 5] the better discovery of our ignorance, and so dispose us to humility, not pride. But Pride and self-love is congenitum malum; it is a close, and a pleasing, and inseparable corruption, which by slie and serpentine insi­nuations conveyeth it self, as into whatsoever else is good and eminent in us, and poisoneth it; so especially into the endowments of the under­standing part. Sharpness of Wit, quickness of Conceit, faithfulness of Memory, facility of Discourse, propriety of Elocution, concinnity of Gesture, depth of Iudgment, variety of Knowledge in Arts and Languages, and whatever else of like kind, are but as wind to fill the Sails of our Pride, and to make us swell above our Brethren, in whom the like Gifts are not, or not in like eminency. ‘Scientia inflat, our Apostle might well say, 1 Cor. 8. 1. Quo didicisse, nisi hoc fermen­tum, &c. Pers. Satyr. Vid. Casaub. ibid. Knowledge puffeth up; and that it doth so readily and unmeasurably, that unless there be the greater measure both of humility to prevent, and of Charity to vent it, it will in a short time breed a dangerous spiritual tympany in the Soul; a Disease from which the strongest constitutions that have been, have not been altogether so free, but that they have had, if not a spice of it, yet at least-wise an inclination unto it.’ Even this our blessed Apostle, who had so much humility as to account himself 1 Cor. 15. 9. of A­postles the least, but 1 Tim. 1. 15. of sinners the chiefest, was in so great danger 2 Cor. 12. 7. [...]. to be exalted above measure through the abundance of Revelations; that it was needful he should have a thorn in the flesh, a messenger of Satan to buffet him, lest he should be exalted above measure, 2 Cor. 12. ‘No marvel then if these new Converts, but lately called by God out of the darkness of their ignorance, 1 Pet. 2. 9. into his marvellous great light, and not having their understandings well informed, and their judgments throughly setled in the Doctrine and Use, in the nature and extent of that Evangelical LIber­ty whereunto they were called: no marvel, I say, if these, upon so sensible a change, were more than a little distempered with this swelling above their Brethren, even as far as to despise them.’ So hard it is, even for the most exercised Christian, not to take knowledge of his own knowledge; or doing so, not to despise and neglect the Infirmities of his less-knowing Brother. It was not then without good need, that St. Paul should become a Remembrancer to the strong in Faith, not to despise the weak. And there is as good need the very strongest of us should remem­ber it, and take heed of despising even the very weakest; this despising being hurtful both to the strong and weak; to the strong as a grievous sin, and to the weak as a grievous scandal.

Despising, first, is a sin in the strong. Admit thy weak Brother were of8. so shallow understanding and judgment, that he might say in strictness of truth, what Agar said but in modesty, and that with an Hyperbole too, Prov. 30. that Prov. 30. 1. Surely he were more bruitish than any man, and that he had not in him the understanding of a man; yet the community of nature, and the common condition of humanity, should be sufficient to free him from thy Contempts. His body was formed out of the same dust, his soul breath­ed into him by the same God, as thine were; and he is thy Neighbour. Let his weakness then be what it can be, even for that relation of Neighbour­hood, as he is a man, it is sin in thee to despise him [Prov. 14. 21. He that despiseth his neighbour, sinneth, Prov. 14.] But that's not all; he is not only thy Neighbour as a man, but he is thy Brother too, as a Christian man. He hath embraced the Gospel, he believeth in the Son of God, he is within the pale of the Church, as well as thou, though he be not so exquisitely seen in some higher Mysteries, nor so throughly satisfied in some other points, as thou art. If it hath pleased God to endow thee with a larger portion of know­ledge; [Page 6] thou oughtest to consider, First, that thou art bound to be so much1. the more thankful to him that gave it; and then, secondly, that it is expect­ed,2. that thou shouldst do so much the more good with it; and thirdly, again,3. that thou standest charged with so much the deeper account for it. If the same God hath deàlt these abilities with a more sparing hand to thy Bro­ther, in despising his weakness, what other thing dost thou, than even de­spise the good spirit of God, John 3. 8. that bloweth where he listeth, and 1 Cor. 12. 11. giveth to every one as he listeth? For though there be 1 Cor. 12. 4. diversity of Gifts (both for substance and degree, yet it is the same Spirit, 1 Cor. 12. And the con­tempt that is cast upon the meanest Christian, reboundeth upwards again, and in the last resolution reflecteth even upon God himself, and upon his Christ. [1 Thes. 4. 8. He that despiseth, despiseth not man, but God, who hath given unto us his holy Spirit, 1 Thes. 4. And 1 Cor. 8. 12. when ye sin so against the Brethren, and wound their weak Consciences, ye sin against Christ, 1 Cor. 8.]

Thus you see despising is hurtful to the despiser, as a Sin; it is hurtful also, as a Scandal to the despised. And therefore our Saviour in Mat. 18. discoursing of Mat. 18. 6, &c. not offending little ones; anon varieth the word, and speak­eth of Ibid. 10. not despising them; as if despising were an especial and principal kind of offending or scandalizing. And verily so it is, especially to the weak. Nothing is more grievous to Nature, scarce death it self, than for a man to see himself despised. Plaut. in Ci­stel. Act. 4. Scen. 1. Ego illam anum irridere me ut sinam? Sa­tius est mihi quovis exitio interire, could he say in the Comedy. It is a thing that pierceth far, and sinketh deep, and striketh cold, and lieth hea­vy upon the heart: Habet enim quendam acu­leum contume­lia quem pati prudentes ac boni viri diffi­cillime possunt. Cic. Ver. 5. flesh and blood will digest any thing with better pa­tience. ‘The great Arist. lib. 2. Rhet. 2. cap. 2. where he thus defineth An­ger. [...]. Philosopher, for this reason maketh contempt the ground of all Discontent; and sufficiently proveth it in the second of his Rhe­toricks; there being never any thing taken offensively, but sub ratione contemptus; nothing provoking to Anger, but what is either truly a con­tempt, or at leastwise so apprehended. We all know how tenderly eve­ry one of us would take it, but to be neglected by others; to have no reckoning at all made of us; to be so reputed as if we were not; or not worth the looking after; Vide opus Adag. Mega renses neque tertii, neque quarti. [...], as the Oracle said to the Magarenses.’ And yet this is but the least degree of Contempt; [...]. Ibid. a pri­vate contempt only. How tenderly then may we think a weak Christian would take it, when to this private he should find added [...]. Ari. ubi supra. a Positive contempt also? when he should see his person and his weakness, not only not compassionated, but even [...]. Chrys. Hom. 23. in Gen. taunted, and flouted, and derided, and made a laughing-stock, and a jesting Theme? when he should see them grieve to speak and do such things in his sight and hearing, as they know will be of­fensive to him, of very purpose to vex, and afflict, and grieve his tender soul? Certainly for a weak Christian newly converted to the Faith, to be thus despised, it were enough, without God's singular Have mercy upon us O Lord, have mercy upon us; for we are exceed­ingly filled with contempt: Our soul is exceed­ingly filled with the scorning of those that are at ease, and with the con­tempt of the proud, Psal. 123. 3, 4. mercy and support, to make him repent his late conversion, and revolt from the Faith, by fear­ful and desperate Apostacy. And he that by such despising, should thus of­fend, though but Mat. 18. 6. &c. one of the least and weakest of those that believe in Christ, a thousand times better had it been for him, that he had never been born; yea, ten thousand times better that a mill-stone had been hung about his neck, and he cast into the bottom of the Sea, ere he had done it. Despi­sing is a grievous sin in the despiser, in the strong; and despising is a grievous scandal to the despised, to the weak. Let not therefore the strong despise the Weak; Let not him that eateth, despise him that eateth not. And thus much for the former branch of St. Paul's advice: The other followeth, Let not him that eateth not, judge him that eateth.

[Page 7]Faults seldom go single, but by couples at the least. Sinful men do10 with sinful provocations, as Ball-players with the Ball: when the Ball is once up, they labour to keep it up; right so when an offence or provoca­tion is once given, it is [...]. Et mox, [...], Max. Tyrius [...]. tossed to and fro, the receiver ever returning it pat upon the giver, and that most times with advantage; and so betwixt them they make a shift to preserve a perpetuity of sinning, and of scanda­lizing one another. ‘It is hard to say who beginneth oftner, the Strong or the Weak; but whether ever beginneth, he may be sure the other will follow. If this judge, that will despise; if that despise, this will judge: either doth his endeavour to cry quittance with other, and thinketh himself not to be at all in fault, because the other was first or more. This Apostle, willing to redress faults in both, beginneth first with the Strong, and for very good reason. Not that his fault, simply considered in it self, is greater; (for I take it a certain truth, That to judge one that is in the right, is a far greater fault, considered absolutely, without relation to the abilities of the persons, than to despise one that is in the wrong:) But because the strong through the ability of his Judgment, ought to yield so much to the infirmity of his weak Brother, who through the weakness of his Judgment, is not so well able to discern what is fit for him to do. What in most other contentions is expected, should be done in this: Not he that is most in fault, but he that hath most wit, should give over first. Indeed in reason, the more faulty is rather bound to yield; but if he will be unreasonable (as most times it falleth out) and not do it; then in discretion, the more able should do it. As Gen. 13. 9 [...] 11. Abraham in discretion yieldeth the choice to his Nephew Lot upon the contention of their Herdsmen, which in reason Lot should rather have yielded unto him. But where both are faulty, as it is not good to stand debating who began first; so it is not safe to strain courtesie who shall end, and mend first. In the case of my Text, both were faulty; and therefore our Apostle would have both mend.’ He hath school'd the Strong, and taught him his Lesson, not to despise anothers infirmity; Let not him that eateth despise him that eateth not. Now the Weak must take out his Lesson too, not to judge anothers Liberty; Let not him that eateth not, judge him that eateth.

I will not trouble you with other significations of the word; to judge, 11. as it is here taken, is as much as to Ne condem­nato. Beza. condemn: and so the word [...] is often taken in the worser sense for [...]. ‘Tropically by a Piscator in Schol. ad hunc locum. Synec­doche generis, say Scholiasts; and they say true. But it is a Trope, for which both in this, and in Evil manners have been the spoiling of many good words; as [...], Tyrannus, So­phista, Latro, [...], Ve­nenum, Magus; and in our English Tongue, Knave, Villain, Churl, &c. See Minshew, Verstegan, &c. divers other words, we are not so much be­holden to good Arts, as to bad Manners. Things that are good or in­different, we commonly turn to ill, by using them the worst way: whence it groweth, that words of good or indifferent signification, in time degenerate so far as to be commonly taken in the worst sence.’ But this by the way. The fault of these weak ones, in the case in hand, was that measuring other mens actions and consciences, by the model of their own understandings; in their private Censures they rashly passed their Iudgments upon, and pronounced peremptory Sentence against such as used their Liberty in some things, concerning the lawfulness whereof them­selves were not satisfied, as if they were loose Christians, carnal Professors, nomine tenus Christiani, men that would not stick to do any thing, and such as made either none at all, or else very little conscience of their acti­ons. This Practice my Text disalloweth and forbiddeth; and the rule hence for us is plain and short; We must not judge others. The Scriptures [Page 8] are express, Matth. 7. 1. Iudge not, that ye be not judged, Matth. 7. 1 Cor. 4. 5. Iudge nothing before the time, &c. 1 Cor. 4. Rom. 2. 1. Thou art inexcusable, O Man, whosoever thou art that judgest, Rom. 2. And James 4. 11. If thou judgest, thou art not a doer of the Law, but a Iudge, James 4.

First, it is an Usurpation. He that is of right to judge, must have a Calling and Commission for it. Exod. 2. 14. Quis constituit te? sharply replied upon Moses, Exod. 2. Who made thee a Iudge? and Luke 12. 14. Quis constituit me? rea­sonably [Page 9] alledged by our Saviour, Luke 12. Who made me a Iudge? Thou takest too much upon thee then, thou son of man, whosoever thou art that judgest; thus saucily to thrust thy self into God's seat, and to [...], &c. Chrys. in Gen. hom. 42. in­vade his Throne. Remember thy self well, and learn to know thine own rank. Jam. 4. 12. Quis tu? Who art thou that judgest another? Iames 4. Or, Who art thou that judgest anothers Servant? in the next following Verse to my Text. As if the Apostle had said, What art thou? Or what hast thou to do to judge him that Rom. 14. 4. standeth or falleth to his own Master? Thou art his fellow-Servant, not his Lord. He hath another Lord that can and will judge him; who is thy Lord too, and can and will judge thee: for so he argueth anon at Verse 10. Why dost thou judge thy brother? We shall all stand before the Iudgment-Seat of Christ. ‘God hath reserved Mali operis vindictam, B [...]i gloriam, utriusque Judi­cium. three Pre­rogatives Royal to himself, Deut. 32. 35. Vengeance, Isa. 42. 8. Rom. 12. 19. Glory, and Rom. 14. 4.—10. Jam. 4. 11, 12. Iudgment. As it is not safe for us then to encroach upon Tres homi­num species maximam Deo faciunt injuri­am: Superbi, qui auferunt ei Gloriam; Ira­cundi, qui Vin­dictam; Regidi, qui Judicium. God's Royalties in either of the other two; Glory, or Vengeance: so neither in this of Judgment; Dominus judicabit, Heb. 10. 30. The Lord himself will judge his people, Heb. 10.’ It is flat Usurpation in us to judge; and therefore we must not judge.

Secondly, it is rashness in us. A Judge must Et nunc Reges intelligi­te: erudimini; qui judicatis ter­ram, Psal. 2. 10. si judicas, cog­nosce. Sen. in Med. Act. 2. [...]. Phocylid. understand the truth, both for matter of Et normam, & Causam: Normam, secundum quam; & causam, de qua statuendum. Ad Factum hac pertinet, illa ad jus: ad illam, Peritia opus est; ad hanc, Prudentia. fact, and for point of Law; and he must be sure he is in the right for both, before he proceed to sentence; or else he will give rash judgment. How then dare any of us undertake to sit as Iudges upon other mens Consciences, wherewith we are so little acquainted, that we are indeed but too much unacquainted with our own? We are not able to search the depth of our own Jer. 17. 9. I know nothing by my self, yet am I not hereby justified, but he that judgeth me is the LORD, 1 Cor. 4 4. If our heart condemn us, GOD is greater than our heart, and knoweth all things, 1 John 3. 21. Latet me facultas mea, quae in me est; ut animus meus de viribus suis ipse se interrogans, non facilè sibi credendum existimet, quia & quod inest plerumque occult [...]m est. Aug. lib. 10. Confess. c. 32. wicked and deceitful hearts; and to ran▪ sack throughly the many secret windings and turnings therein: how much less then are we able to fathome the bottoms of other mens hearts, with any14. certainty to pronounce of them either good or evil? We must then leave2. the judgments of other mens Spirits, and hearts, and reins, to him that is Heb. 12. 9. the Father of Spirits, and alone Psal. 79. & 26. 2. Jer. 11. 20. and 17. 10. & 20. 12. Rev. 2. 23. searcheth the hearts and reins; before whose eyes all things are Heb. 4. 13. [...], as the word is most Emphatical, Heb. 4. Wherefore our Apostles precept elsewhere is good to this purpose, 1 Cor. 4. 1 Cor. 4. 5. Iudge nothing before the time, until the Lord come who both will bring to light the hidden things of darkness, and will make manifest the counsels of the hearts. ‘Unless we be able to bring these hidden things to light, and to make manifest these counsels; it is Temeritas est damnare quod nescias. Sen. Epist. 91. S [...]nt quaedam facta media, quae ignoramus quo animo fiunt, quia & bono & malo fieri possunt, de quibus temerarium est judicare. August. l. 2. de Serm. Dom. in monte, cap. 18. rashness in us to judge: and therefore we must not judge.’

Thirdly, this judging is uncharitable. Charity is not easily suspicious; 15. but upon just cause: much less then, censorious and peremptory. Indeed3. when we are to judge of In rerum judicio debet a­liquis niti ad hoc, ut interpre­tetur unum­quodque secun­dum quod est: in judicio autem personarum, ut interpretetur in melius. Aquin. 2. 0. qu. 60. art. 4. ad 3. and he giveth a substantial reason for it, ib. in resp. id 2. Things, it is wisdom to judge of them Se­cundùm quod sunt, as near as we can, to judge of them just as they are, without any sway or partial inclination either to the right hand or to the left. But when we are to judge of Men, and their Actions; it is not al­together so: there the rule of charity must take place, Glossa Ord. in hunc loc. & Theologi passim. Semper quicquid dubium est, humanitas incli [...]at in melius, Sen. ep. 81. dubia in melio­rem partem sunt interpretanda. Unless we see manifest cause to the con­trary, [Page 10] we ought ever to interpret what is done by others, with as much favour as may be. ‘To err thus is better than to hit right the other way, because this course is Error Cha­ritatis salutaris err [...]r. safe, and secureth us, as from Melius est quod aliquis frequenter fal­latur, habens bonam opinio­nem de malo ho­mine, quàm quòd rarius fal­latur, habens malam opinio­nem de bono ho­mine▪ quia ex hoc sit injuria alicui; non au­tem ex primo. Aq. 2. a. qu. 60. Art. 2. ad. 1. injuring o­thers, so from endangering our selves: whereas in judging ill, though right, we are still Aequum licet statuerit, haud aequus fu­it Sen. in Med. Act. 2. unjust, [...], the event only, and not our choice freeing us from wrong judgment.’ True Charity is ingenuous; it 1 Cor. 13. 5. thinketh no evil, 1 Cor. 13. How far then are they from Charity, that are ever suspicious, and think nothing well? For us, let it be our care to maintain Charity, and to avoid, as far as humane frailty will give leave, even sinister suspicions of our brethrens actions: or if through frailty we cannot that, yet let us not from light suspicions fall into uncharitable censures: let us at leastwise suspend our Si suspici­ones vitare non possumus, quia homines sumus: judicia tamen, id est, definiti­vas firmasque sententias con­tinere debemus. Glos. Ordin. in 1 Cor. 4. definitive judgment, and not determine too peremptorily against such as do not in every respect just as we do, or as we would have them do, or as we think they should do. It is uncharitable for us to judge, and therefore we must not judge.

Lastly, There is Scandal in judging. Possibly he that is judged, may have that strength of Faith and Charity, that though rash and uncharita­ble censures lye thick in his way, he can lightly skip over all those stum­bling-blocks, and scape a fall. Saint Paul had such a measure of strength; 1 Cor. 4. 3. with me it is a very small thing, saith he, that I should be judged of you, or of humane judgment, 1 Cor. 4. If our judging light upon such an Object, it is indeed no scandal to him: but that's no thanks to us. We are to esteem things by their natures, not events: and therefore we give a scandal, if we judge; notwithstanding he that is judged take it not as a scandal. For, that judging is in itself a scandal, is clear from Vers. 13. of this Chapter; Let us not therefore, saith S. Paul, judge one another any more, but judge this rather, That no man put a stumbling-block, or an occasion to fall into his bro­thers way. And thus we see four main Reasons against this judging of our brethren. 1. We have no right to judge; and so our judging is usurpation. 16. 2. We may err in our judgments; and so our judging is rashness. 3. We take things the worst way when we judge; and so our judging is unchari­table. 4. We offer occasion of offence by our judging; and so our judg­ing is scandalous. Let not him therefore that eateth not, judge him that eateth.

And so I have done with my Text in the general use of it: wherein we17. have seen the two faults of despising and of judging our brethren, laid o­pen, and the ugliness of both discovered. I now descend to make such Application, as I promised, both of the case and rules, unto some differen­ces, and to some offences, given and taken in our Church in point of Ce­remony. The Case ruled in my Text was of eating, and not eating: the Differences which some maintain in our Church are many in the particu­lars; (as of kneeling, and not kneeling; wearing, and not wearing; cros­sing, and not crossing, &c.) But all these, and most of the rest of them, may be comprehended in gross under the terms of Conforming, and not Conforming. Let us first compare the Cases; that having found wherein they agree, or disagree, we may thereby judge how far S. Paul's advice in my Text ought to rule us, for not despising, for not judging one another. There are four special things, wherein if we compare this our Case with the Apostles, in every of the four we shall find some agreement, and some disparity also: 1. The nature of the matter: 2. The abilities of the per­sons: 3. Their several practices about the things: and 4. Their mutual car­riage one towards another. And first, let us consider how the two Cases agree in each of these.

First, The matter whereabout the eater and the not-eater differed in the18. [Page 11] case of the Romans, was in the nature of it indifferent; so it is between1. the Conformer and not Conformer in our Case. As there fish, and flesh, and herbs were merely indifferent; such as might be eaten, or not eaten with­out sin; so here, Cap and Surplice, Cross and Ring, and the rest, are things merely indifferent; such as (in regard of their own nature) may be used or not used without sin; as being neither expresly commanded, nor ex­presly forbidden in the Word of God.

Secondly, The Persons agree. For as there, so here also, some are strong in2. Faith, some weak. There are many, whose judgments are upon certain and in­fallible grounds assured and resolved, and that certitudine Fidei, that Cap, and Surplice, and Cross, and the rest, are things lawful, and such as may be used with a good Conscience. There are some others again, who, through ignorance, or custom, or prejudice, or otherwise weakned in their judgments, cannot (or will not) be perswaded that these things are altogether free from Superstition and Idolatry: nor consequently the use of them from sin.

Thirdly, The practice of the persons are much alike. As there, the3. strong did use his liberty according to the assurance of his knowledge, ( [...]) and did eat freely without scruple; and the weak did for­bear to eat, because of his doubting and irresolution: So here, most of us in assured confidence that we may wear, and cross, and kneel, and use other Ceremonies and Customs of our Church, do willingly, and ex animo, con­form our selves thereunto. Yet some there are, who out of I know not what niceness and scrupulosity, make dainty of them, and either utterly refuse conformity, or at leastwise desire respite, till they can better inform themselves.

Lastly, There is some correspondence also in the faulty carriage of the4. parties each towards other. For as there the Eater despised the Not-eater; and the Not-eater judged the Eater: so here, it cannot be denied, but that some Conformers (although I hope far the lesser, I am sure far the worser sort) do despise and scandalize the Non-Conformers more than they have reason to do, or any discreet honest man will allow. But is it not most certain also, that the Non-Conformers (but too generally, yea, and the better sort of them too, but too often and much) do pass their censures with marvellous great freedom; and spend their judgments liberally up­on, and against the Conformers? Hitherto the Cases seem to agree. One would think, mutatis mutandis, the Apostle's rule would as well fit our Church and Case, as the Roman; and should as well free the Non-Con­formers from our Contempt, as us from their Censures. Let not him that Conformeth, despise him that Conformeth not: and let not him that Con­formeth not, judge him that Conformeth.

But if you will please to take a second surview of the four several par­ticulars,19. wherein the Cases seemed to agree, you shall find very much1. disparity and disproportion betwixt the two Cases in each of the four re­spects. In the case of my Text, the matter of difference among them, was not only indifferent in the nature of it; but it was also left as indifferent for the use: the Church (perhaps) not having determined any thing po­sitively therein; at least no publick authority having either enjoyned, or forbidden the use of such or such meats. But in the Case of our Church it is far otherwise. Cap, Surpliice, Cross, Ring, and other Ceremonies, which are the Matter of our differences; though they be things indifferent for their nature, and in themselves, yet are not so for their use, and unto us. If the Church had been silent, if Authority had prescribed nothing here­in, these Ceremonies had then remained for their use, as they are for their [Page 12] nature, indifferent: Lawful and such as might be used without sin; and yet Arbitrary, and such as might be also forborn without sin. But men must grant (though they be unwilling, if yet they will be reasonable) that every particular Church Article 20. agreeable to the confessi­ons of other Protestant Churches. hath power, for [...]. 1 Cor. 14. 20. decency and orders sake, to or­dain and constitute Ceremonies. Which being once ordained, and by publick Authority enjoyned, cease to be indifferent for their use, though they remain still so for their nature: and of indifferent become so necessa­ry, that neither may a man without sin Constit. & Canon. 30. refuse them, where Authority re­quireth; nor use them, where Authority restraineth the use.20.

Neither is this accession of Necessity any impeachment to Christian Liber­ty; or Ex 1 Cor. 7. 35. insnaring of mens consciences, as Lincolnsh. Abridg. p. 34. some have objected. For then do we insnare mens consciences by humane Constitutions, when we thrust them upon men as if they were divine; and bind mens consciences to them immediately, as if they were immediate parts of Gods Worship, or of absolute necessity unto salvation. This Tyranny and Usurpation over mens Consciences, the Mat. 7 8, &c. Pharisees of old did, and the Church of Rome at this day doth exercise, and we justly hate in her: In Spiritum Sanctum blas­phemant, qui sacros Canones violant. 25 qu. 1. Violatores. equalling, if not pre­ferring her Constitutions to the Laws of God. But our Church (God be thanked) is far from any such impious presumption, Constit. &c. can. 74. a [...]t. 20. Act for Uni­formity; and Treat. of cere­monies pre­fixed to the Book of Com­mon-Prayer. and hath sufficiently declared her self by solemn protestation, enough to satisfie any ingenuous impartial judgment, that by requiring obedience to these ceremonial Constitutions, she hath no other purpose, than to reduce all Without pre­judice to the liberty of o­ther Chur­ches. See Pref. to com­munion Book. her Children to an orderly uniformity in the outward worship of God; so far is she from seeking to draw any opinion, either of The Church ought not to enforce any thing besides the holy Writ, to be believed for necessity of salvation. Artic. 20. divine necessity upon the Consti­tution, or of effectual holiness upon the Ceremony. And as for the pre­judice which seemeth hereby to be given to Christian Liberty, it is so slender a conceit, that it seemeth to bewray in the Objectors desire, not so much of satisfaction as cavil. For first, the liberty of a Christian to all indifferent things, is in the Mind and Conscience, and is then infringed, when the conscience is bound and straitned, by imposing upon it an opi­nion of doctrinal necessity. But it is no wrong to the Liberty of a Christi­an mans conscience, to bind him to outward observance for Orders sake, and to impose upon him a necessity of Obedience. Which one distinction of Doctrinal and Obediential Necessity well weighed, and rightly applied, is of it self sufficient to clear all doubts in this point. For, to make all restraint of the outward man in matters indifferent, an impeachment of Christian Liberty, what were it else, but even to bring flat See Confe­rence at Ham. Court. pag. 70, 71. Anabaptism and Anarchy into the Church? and to overthrow all bond of subjection and obedience to lawful Authority? I beseech you consider, wherein can the immediate power and Authority of Fathers, Masters, and other Rulers over their Inferiors consist; or the due obedience of Inferiors be shewn towards them, if not in these In rebus me­diis lex posita est obedienti [...]. Bern. Epist. 7. Indifferent and Arbitrary things? For, things De hujusmo­di quippe nec praeceptor ex­pectandus, nec prohibitor auscultandus est. Ber. de prec & dis­pensat. See Agel. 2. Noct. Artic. 7. & Ber. Ep. 7. absolutely necessary, as commanded by God, we are bound to do, whether humane Authority require them or no; and things absolutely un­lawful, as prohibited by God, we are bound not to do, whether humane Authority forbid them or no. There are none other things left then, wherein to express properly the Obedience due to superior Authority, than these Indifferent things. And if a See Sa. Col­lins Sermon on 1 Tim. 6. 3. pag. 44. &c. Father or Master have power to prescribe to his Child or Servant in indifferent things, and such restraint be no way prejudicial to Christian liberty in them, why should any man either deny the like power to Church-Governours; to make Ecclesiastical Constitutions concerning indifferent things? or interpret that power to the prejudice of Christian Liberty? And again Secondly, Men must under­stand,2. [Page 13] that it is an error to think Ceremonies and Constitutions to be things merely indifferent, I mean in the general. For howsoever every parti­cular Ceremony be indifferent, and every particular Constitution Artic. 34. arbi­trary and alterable; yet that there should be some Ceremonies, it is neces­sary, Necessitate absolutâ, in as much as no outward work can be performed without Ceremonial Circumstances, some or other; and that there should be some Constitutions concerning them, it is also necessary (though not simply and absolutely, as the former; yet Ex hypothese, and) See Calvin lib. 4. Instir. c. 10. sc [...]. 27. necessitate convenientiae. Otherwise since some Ceremonies must needs be used, every Parish, nay every Quot capita, tot Schismata. Hieronym. Man would have his own fashion by himself, as his humour led him: wherefore what other could be the issue, but infinite distraction, and unorderly confusion in the Church? And again thirdly,3. To return their weapon upon themselves; if every restraint in indifferent things be injurious to Christian Liberty, then themselves are injurious no less by their negative restraint from some Ceremonies, Like that Col. 2. 21. Touch not, taste not, handle not. Wear not, Cross not, Kneel not, &c. than they would have the World believe our Church is by her positive restraint unto the Ceremonies of wearing and crossing, and kneeling, &c. Let indifferent men judge, nay let themselves that are parties judge, Whether is more injurious to Christian Liberty, publick Au­thority by mature advice commanding what might be forborn, or private spirits, through humorous dislikes, forbidding what may be used: the whole Church imposing the use, or a few Brethren requiring the forbearance of such things, as are otherwise and in themselves equally indifferent for use, or for forbearance.

But they say, Our Church maketh greater matters of Ceremonies than21. thus, and preferreth them even before the most necessary duties of Preach­ing and administring the Sacraments; in as much as they are imposed up­on Ministers under pain of Suspension and Deprivation from their Mini­sterial Functions and Charges. First, for actual Deprivation; I take it,1. unconforming Ministers have no great cause to complain. ‘Our Church, it is well known, hath not always used that rigor she might have done. Where she hath been forced to proceed as far as Deprivation, she hath ordinarily by her fair, and slow, and compassionate proceedings therein, sufficiently manifested her unwillingness thereto, and declared her self a Mother every way indulgent enough to such ill-nurtured Children, as will not be ruled by her.’ Secondly, Those that are suspended or depri­ved, 2. suffer it but justly for their obstinacy and contempt. For howsoever they would bear the World in hand, that they are the only persecuted ones, and that they suffered for their Consciences, yet in truth, they do but abuse the credulity of the simple therein, and herein (as in many other things) jump with the Papists, whom they would seem above all others most ab­horrent from. For, as Seminary Priests and Iesuits give it out, they are martyr'd for their Pro inficiati­one pontificatûs foeminei. A­quipont. in resp. ad Sohn de Antichristo Thes. 15. speak­ing of the Priests execu­ted in the Reign of Qu. Elizabeth. Religion, when the very truth is, they are See Donnes Pseudo-Martyr per totum: e­specially c. 5. &c. justly ex­ecuted for their prodigious Treasons, and felonious or treacherous Pra­ctices against lawful Princes and Estates: So the Brethren pretend they are persecuted for their Consciences, when indeed they are but justly censured for their obstinate and pertinacious contempt of lawful Authority. For it is not the refusal of these Ceremonies they are deprived for, otherwise than as the matter wherein they shew their contempt: it is the The pra­ctice of our Church suffi­ciently confirmeth this: which censureth no man for the bare omission of some kind of Rites and Ceremonies now and then; where it may be presumed, by the parties chearful and general conformity otherwise, that such omission proceedeth not either from an opinionative dislike of the Ceremony imposed, or from a timorous and obsequious humouring of such as dislike it. Whosoever willingly and purposely doth openly break, &c. Artic. 34. Contempt [Page 14] it self, which formerly and properly subjecteth them to just Ecclesiastical censure of Suspension or Deprivation. And contempt of Authority, though in the In minimis quoque man­datis culpam facit non mini­mam: & con­vertit in cri­men gravis re­bellionis nae­vum satis le­vem simplicis transgressionis. Bern. de prec. & dispens. smallest matter, deserveth no small punishment: all Authority ha­ving been ever solicitous (as it hath good reason) above all things, to vin­dicate and preserve it self from contempt, by inflicting sharp punishments upon contemptuous persons in the smallest matters, above all other sorts of offenders in any degree whatsoever. Thus have we shewed and cleared the first and main difference betwixt the case of my Text, and the case of our Church, in regard of the matter: the things whereabout they differed being every way indifferent; ours not so.

And as the Matter, so there is secondly much odds in the condition of22. the Persons. The refusers in the Case of my Text, being truly weak in the Faith, as being but lately converted to the Christian Faith, and not suffi­ciently instructed by the Church in the Doctrine and Use of Christian Li­berty in things indifferent: whereas with our refusers it is much otherwise. First, They are not new Proselytes, but Men born, and bred, and brought1. up in the bosom of the Church; yea many, and the chiefest of them, such as have taken upon them the calling of the Ministry, and the charge of Souls, and the office of teaching and instructing others. And such men should not be weaklings. Secondly, Ours are such as take themselves to2. have far more knowledge, and understanding, and insight in the Scrip­tures, and all divine Learning, than other men: such as between pity and scorn seem most to wonder at the ignorance and simplicity of the vulgar, and to lament (which is, God knoweth, lamentable enough, though not comparable to what it was within not many years since:) the want of knowledge, and the unsufficiency of some of the Clergie in the Land. And with what reason should these men expect the priviledge of Weak ones? Thirdly, Our Church hath sufficiently declared and published the innocen­cy 3. of her purpose and meaning in enjoyning the Ceremonies: nor so only, but hath been content to hear, and receive, and admit the Objections and Reasons of the Refusers; and have taken pains to answer and satisfie to the full all that ever yet could be said in that behalf. And therefore it is va­nity for these men (or their Friends in their behalf) to alledge weakness, where all good means have been plentifully used for full information in the points in doubt. Lastly, Upon the premisses it doth appear, that the4. weakness of our Brethren, pretended by those that are willing to speak favourably of them, proceedeth for the most part not so much out of sim­ple ignorance, arising from the defect either of understanding or means, as out of an ignorance, at the best in some degree of wilfulness and affectation, in not seeking, or not admitting such ingenuous satisfaction, as they might have by Reason: if not out of the poyson of corrupt and carnal affections, (as they give us sometimes but too much cause to suspect) of pride, of singularity, of envy, of contention, of factious admiring some mens persons. By which, and other like partial affections, mens judgments become often­times so blinded, that of unwilling at the first, they become at length un­able to discern things with that freedom and ingenuity they should. And so the Cases differ in regard of the Persons.

They differ, thirdly, in the Practice of the Persons. There the strong 23. did eat, because he was well assured he might do it, [...], in the Verse before my Text; and the weak did no more but forbear eating; as indeed he might do, no Authority interposing to the contrary. But here, we conform, not only because we know we may lawfully do it, but for that we know we must of [...]. Rom. 13. 5. necessity do it, as bound thereunto in obedience [Page 15] to lawful Authority, and in the Not only for wrath, but also for consci­ence sake. Ibid. conscience we ought to make of such obedience. And the refusers do not only de facto, not conform, to the con­tempt of Authority, and the scandal of others; but they stand in it too, and trouble the peace of the Church by their restless Petitions, and Sup­plications, and Admonitions, and other publications of the reasons and grounds of their such refusal. ‘And verily, this Countrey and the County hath been not the least busie in these factious and tumultuous courses; both in troubling our most gracious, judicious, and religious Sovereign with their Meditati­ons on the Lord's Prayer. pag. 12. in the Margent. Petitions; and also in publishing their Reasons, in a Book called The Abridgment, Printed 1605. to their own shame, and the shame of their Countrey. He who (as I have been informed) was thought to have had a chief hand in the collecting of those Reasons, and Printing of that Book; was for his obstinate refusal of Conformity, justly depri­ved from his Benefice in this Diocess, and thereupon relinquished his Mi­nistery for a time, betaking himself to another Calling: so depriving the Church and People of God of the fruit and benefit of those excellent gifts which were in him. But since that time he hath, upon better and more advised judgment, Subscribed and Conformed; and the Church like an indulgent Mother hath not only received him into her bosom again, but hath restored him too, though not to the same, yet to a Benefice else­where of far greater value.’

Lastly, There is difference in the faulty carriage of the persons: and24. that on both parts, especially on ours. For though our Non-Conforming Brethren condemn us with much liberty of speech and spirit, having yet less reason for it than the weak Romans had (for the strong among them might have forborn some things for the weak's sake; and it would have well become them for the avoiding of scandal so to have done; which we cannot do without greater scandal in the open contempt of lawful Autho­rity:) yet we do not despise them, (I mean with allowance from the Church; if particular men do more than they should, it is their private fault, and ought not to be imputed to us, or to our Church) but use all good means we can to draw them to moderate courses, and just obedience: although they better deserve to be despised than the weak Romans did: they being truly Weak, ours Obstinate; they Timorons, ours also Contemptuous.

Now these differences are opened betwixt the Case in my Text, and25. the Case of the Church: we may the better judge how far forth Saint Paul's advice here given to the Romans in their case of eating, and not­eating, ought to rule us in our case of conforming, and not-conforming in point of Ceremony. And first, of not despising; then, of not judging. The ground of the Apostles precept for not despising him that ate not, was his Weakness. So far then as this ground holdeth in our case, this precept is to be extended, and no further. And we are hereby bound not to de­spise our Non-conforming Brethren, so far forth as it may probably appear to us they are weak, and not wilful. But so far forth, as by their courses and proceedings it may be reasonably thought their refusal proceedeth from corrupt or partial affections, or is apparently maintained with Obstinacy and Contempt: I take it we may, notwithstanding the Apostles admoni­tion in my Text, in some sort even despise them.

But because they think they are not so well and fairly dealt withal as26. they should be: Let us consider their particular grievances, wherein they take themselves despised; and examine how just they are. They say, first, they are despised in being scoffed and flouted, and derided by loose companions, and by profane or Popishly affected persons; in being stiled [Page 16] Puritans, and Brethren, and Precisians, and having many jests and foole­ries fastned upon them, whereof they are not guilty. They are secondly, despised, All benefit of Law being denied them, and they de­barred of other means by confe­rence or writing for their de­fence. Def. of Ministers rea­sons, part 1. pref. to the Reader, We do accuse the Re­verend Bishops in the sight of God and Man, for their hard and extreme dealing toward us. Removal of Imputations, p. 40. they say, in that when they are convented before the Bishops and others in Authority, they cannot have the favour of an indifferent Hearing; but are proceeded against as far as Suspension, and sometimes Deprivation, without taking their Answers to what is objected, or giving Answers to what they object. Thirdly, in that many honest and religious men, of excellent and useful gifts, cannot be permitted the liberty of their Consciences, and the free exercise of their Ministery; only for standing out in these things, which our selves cannot but confess to be indifferent.

To their first grievance we answer, That we have nothing to do with those that are Popishly affected. If they wrong them, as it is like enough they will (for they will not stick to wrong their Betters;) we are not to be charged with that; let them answer for themselves. ‘But by the way, let our Brethren consider, whether their stiff and unreasonable oppo­sing against those lawful Ceremonies we retain, may not be one princi­pal means to confirm, but so much the more in their darkness and super­stition, those that are wavering, and might possibly by more ingenuous and seasonable insinuations be won over to embrace the truth which we17. profess. And as for loose persons and profane ones, that make it their sport upon their Ale-benches, to rail and scoff at Puritans; as if it were warrant enough for them to drink drunk, talk bawdy, swear and stare, or do any thing without controul, because, forsooth, they are no Puri­tans:’ As we could wish, our Brethren and their Lay followers, by their uncouth and sometimes ridiculous behaviour, had not given profane per­sons too much advantage to play upon them, and through their sides to wound even Religion it self: so we could wish also that some men by un­reasonable and unjust, other some by unseasonable and indiscreet scoffing at them, had not given them advantage to triumph in their own innocency, and persist in their affected obstinacy. It cannot but be some confirmation to men in errour, to see men of dissolute and loose behaviour, with much eagerness, and petulancy, and virulence, to speak against them. We all know how much scandal and prejudice it is to a right good cause, to be ei­ther followed by persons open to just exception, or maintained with slen­der and unsufficient reasons, or prosecuted with unseasonable and undiscreet violence. And I am verily perswaded, that Many by their factious behaviour were driven to be Papists. The King's Ma. in Confer. at Hamp. p. 68. as the increase of Papists in some parts of the Land, hath occasionally sprung (by a kind of Anti­peristasis) from the intemperate courses of their Neighbour Puritans; so the increase of Puritans, in many parts of the Land, oweth not so much to any sufficiency themselves conceive in their own grounds, as to the dis­advantage of some profane, or scandalous, or idle, or ignorant, or indis­creet opposers. But setting these aside, I see not but that otherwise the Name of Puritan, and the rest, are justly given them. For appropriating to themselves the Names of Brethren, Professors, Good men, and other like; as differences betwixt them and those they call Formalists: Would they not have it thought that they have a Brotherhood and Profession of their own, freer and purer from Superstition and Idolatry, than others have, that are not of the same stamp? and doing so, why may they not be cal­led Puritans? The Name, I know, is sometimes fastened upon those that deserve it not; Rascal people will call any man that beareth but the face of honesty, a Puritan; but why should that hinder others from placing it where it is rightly due.

''To their second Grievance I answer: Publick means by Conferences, 28 [Page 17] Disputations, and otherwise, have been often used: and private men not seldom afforded the favour of respite and liberty to bring in their Allega­tions. ‘And I think it can be hardly, or but rarely instanced, that ever Deprivation hath been used, but where fatherly Admonitions have first been used, and time given to the Delinquents to consider of it, and in­form themselves better. This course usually hath been taken; though every private particular man hath no reason to expect it.’ The Reve­rend Fathers of our Church, we may well think, amid so much other im­ployment, cannot be so unthrifty of their good hours, as to lavish them out in hearing contentious persons eandem cantilenam, sing the same note an hundred times over, and require farther satisfaction, after so many pub­lick and unanswerable satisfactions already given. Yet have the Witness the learned Books of divers reve­rend Prelates: Iohn Whitgift, Iohn Bucke­ridge, Tho. Morton, &c. Bishops and other Church-Governours out of their religious Zeal for the peace of Gods Church, been so far from despising our Brethren herein; that they have dispensed sometimes with their other weighty occasions, and taken pains to answer their Reasons, and confute their Exceptions, satisfie all their Doubts, and discover the weakness of all their grounds in the points questioned.

And as to their third Grievance: First, for my own part, I make no29. doubt, neither dare I be so uncharitable as to think, but that many of them have honest, and upright, and sincere hearts to God-ward, and are un­feignedly zealous of Gods Truth and for Religion. ‘They that are such, no doubt feel the comfort of it in their own souls: and we see the fruits of it in their conversation, and rejoyce at it.’ But yet I cannot be so ig­norant on the other side, as not to know, that the most sanctified and zealous men are men, and subject to carnal and corrupt affections; and may be so far swayed by them in their judgments, as not to be able to di­scern, without prejudice and partiality, truth from errour. ‘Good men, and Gods dear children may continue in some Sancti stante charitate pos­sunt errare eti­am contra Ca­tholicam veri­tatem. Occh. Dial. part 1. [...]. 2. c. 4. errour in Iudgment, and consequently in a sinful practice arising thence, and live and die in it (as some of these have done in disobedience to lawful Authority) and that unrepented of otherwise, than as in the lump of their unknown sins. It is not Honesty, nor Sincerity, that can privilege men from either er­ring or sinning.’ Neither ought the unreproved conversation of men countenance out their opinions, or their practices, against light of Divine Scripture, and right reason: As we read Cyprian's errour in old time; and we see in our days not only the suspected Tenents of So Pelagius, from whose root Popery (in that Branch) sprouted, was a man as strict for life as most Catholicks: yet a most dange­rous and pesti­lent Heretick. Pelagii, viri, ut audio, Sanct, & non parvo profectu Chri­stiani. Aug. 3. de pec. merit. & rem. 1. I­stum, sicut eum qui noverunt loquuntur, bo­num ac praedi­candum virum [...] Ib. c. 3. Arminius, but even the bold Heresies of Faustus Socinus have spread much the more for the reverend opinion men had of their personal endowments and sanctity. Secondly, though comparisons are ever harsh, and most times odious; yet since honesty and piety is alledged (without disparagement▪ be it spoken to the best of them) there are as good, and honest, and religious, and zealous men every way, of them that willingly and chearfully conform, as of them that do not. In the times of Popish persecution how many godly Bishops and conformable Ministers laid down their lives for the te­stimony of Gods Truth: and for the maintenance of his Gospel? And if it should please God in his just judgment (as our sins, and amongst others our Schisms and Distractions most worthily deserve) to put us once again to a fiery trial (which the same God for his goodness and mercy defend): I make no question but many thousands of Conformers would (by the grace of God) resist unto Blood, embrace the Faggot, and burn at a Stake, in detestation of all Popish, Antichristian Idolatry, as readily and chearfully, and constantly, as the hottest, and precisest, and most scrupu­lous [Page 18] Non-conformer. But Thirdly, Let mens honesty, and piety, and gifts be what they can: must not men of honesty, and piety, and gifts, live under laws? And what reason these, or any other respects, should Non enim in cujusquam per­sona praetermit­tendum est, quod institutis gene­ralibus contine­tur: Leo. Dist. 61. Miramur. ex­empt any man from the just censure of the Church, in case he will not obey her Laws, and conform to her Ceremonies? especially, since such mens im­punity would but encourage others to presume upon the like favour: and experience teacheth us, that no mens errors are so exemplary and pernici­ous as theirs, who for their eminency of gifts, or sanctity of life, are most followed with popular applause, and personal admiration.

We see their Grievances against us, how unjust they are, in the matter of30. Despising. I would they did no more despise the Churches Authority, than we do their infirmities! But in matter of judging, see if we have not a just grievance against them. As might be declared at large in many instan­ces, out of their Printed Books, and private Letters, and common Discour­ses. I will but give you a I refer the Reader for more particu­lar satisfaction to Fr. Mason's Serm. on 1 Cor. 14. 40. pag. 30. Sam. Collins Serm. on 1 Tim. 6. 3. pa. 21, 22 and others: but especially to their own Writings. taste, because I know I grow tedious, and I long to be at an end.

First, They judge our Church as half Popish and Antichristian, for retain­ing some Ceremonies used in Popery; though we have purged them from their Superstitions, and restored them to their Primitive use. Their great admired Brightman in Apoc. cap. 3. Opener of the Revelation, maketh our Church the Linsey-Woolsey Laodicean Church, neither hot nor cold. And some of them have31. slovenly compared our late gracious Sovereign Queen Elizabeth, of most Blessed Memory, to a This Simile was first used by a very Re­verend, grave and worthy Dean (who hath many ways deserved well of our whole Church) Alexander Noel, Dean of Pauls, in a Sermon before Queen Elizabeth: and modestly and moderately urged, not at all against the Ceremonies (which by his practice he did allow), but for the further restraint of Popish Priests and Jesuites, who lay thick in Ireland, and the Western Coasts of England and Wales, as heaps of dust and dirt behind the doors. Yet I here ascribed it to the Puritans, who (though they father it upon that good Man) must own it as their own Brat, because by mis applying it to the Ceremonies, they have made it their own.—Malè dum recitas, incipit esse t [...]un. Sluttish Housewife; that having swept the House, yet left the dust and dirt behind the doors; meaning thereby the Ceremo­nies. If our Church were but half so ill as these men would make it, I think every honest religious man should hold himself bound to separate from it, as his most excellent Majesty Meditations on the Lords Prayer, page 21, &c. primae edit 1619. See Hooker's Preface, Sect. 8. hath observed the Brownists have done upon their very grounds; accounting them as Luke-warm for not quite separating, as they do us for no further reforming.

Secondly, They judge our Bishops, and other Church-governours, as Limbs32. of Antichrist, Locusts of the bottomless pit, domineering Lords over Gods heritage, Usurpers of temporal Jurisdiction, Spiritual Tyrants over mens Consciences, &c. Seeking by all means to make the name of Lord-Bishop odious to the Gentry and Commons. Witness their Mar-prelate, and o­ther infamous and scandalous Libels in that kind. ‘Having power in their hands, if the Bishops should use more rigorous courses towards them than they have done, could ye blame them?’

Thirdly, They judge those that subscribe and conform, Machiavellian Time­servers, 33. formal Gospellers, State-Divines: men that know no conscience, but Law, nor Religion, but the Kings: and such as would be as forward for the Mass, as the Communion, if the State should alter.

Fourthly, All such Ministers as are not endowed with gifts for the Pulpit, 34. they damn, as hirelings, and not shepherds: calling them Idol-Shepherds, betrayers of Christs flock, intruders into the Ministery without a Calling, dumb Dogs, and I know not how many Names besides. Yea, although they be such as are diligent, according to their measure of Gifts, to per­form such duties as the Church requireth: to present the prayers of the [Page 19] people to God; to declare (by reading the holy Bible, and good Homilies for that purpose appointed) the will of God to the people; to instruct the younger sort in the points of Catechism; to visit and comfort the sick and afflicted; and to administer reverently and orderly the holy Sacraments of Baptism and the Lords Supper.

Fifthly, They judge all such as interpose for the Churches peace, and op­pose 35. their Novelties, as enemies to all goodness, men of profane minds; haters of Religion, despisers of the Word; persecutors of the Brethren; Imps of Satan, instruments of Hell, and such as utterly abhor all godly and Christian courses.

Sixthly, and lastly (for I irk to rake longer in this Sink), they bewray36. themselves to be manifest Iudges of all that are not of their stamp; by singling out unto themselves, and those that favour them, certain proper Appellations, of Brethren, and Good men, and Professors: as if none had Brotherhood in Christ, none had interest in goodness, none made profession of the Gospel but themselves. Whereas others have received the sign of their Profession in their foreheads after Baptism, which perhaps they did not: whereas others daily stand up in the Congregation to make professi­on of their Christian Belief, which it may be they do not: or (if those things be not material) whereas others by the grace of God are as stedfast­ly resolved in their hearts, if need should be, to seal the truth of their profession with their blood, as any of them can be.

But they will say, These peremptory Censures are but the faults of some37. few: all are not so hot and fiery. There be others that are more tempe­rate in their speeches, and moderate in their courses; and desire only they may be spared for their own particular: but they Preach not against any of these things, nor intermeddle to make more stirs in the Church.

I answer first, It were lamentable, if this were not so: ‘If all were of1. that hot temper, or distemper rather, that many are; they would quickly tire out themselves without spurring. Far be it from us to judge mens hearts; or to condemn men for what we know not by them.’ Yet of some that carry themselves with tolerable moderation outwardly, we have some cause to suspect, that they do inwardly, and in their hearts judge as deeply as the hottest spirited Railers. And we gather it from their for­wardness at every turn, and upon every slender occasion, obliquely to gird, and indirectly to glance at our Church, and the Discipline, and the Ceremonies thereof, as far as they well dare. And if such men meddle no further, we may reasonably think, Eadem velle eos cognos­ces: da posse, quantum vo­lunt. Sen. Ep. 42. it is not for want of good will to do it, but because they dare not.

Secondly, Though they preach not against these things in the publick 2. Congregations; yet in their private Conventicles it is not unknown some do. Though their Pulpits do not ring with it, yet their Houses do: though their ordinary Sermons ad Populum be more modest; yet their set Confe­rences are sometimes but too free, especially when they are required their Opinions by those that invite them. And what themselves (for fear of Censure) thus Preach but Matth. 10. 27. in the ear; their Lay-disciples openly preach on the house top.

Thirdly, Although both their Pulpits and Tables should be silent: yet3. their Practice sufficiently preacheth their dislike, And who knoweth not that a Real and Exemplary seducement maketh the Author guilty, as well as a Verbal and Oratory? Saint Peter did not Preach Iudaism; but only, for offending the Iews, forbare to eat with the Gentiles: yet Saint Paul reproveth him for it to his face, and interpreteth that fact of his, as [Page 20] an effectual and almost compulsive seducement; Cogis judaizare, Gal. 2. Gal. 2. 14. utique conver­sationis fuit vitium, non praedicationis. Tert. de prae­script. cap. 23. Non imperio, sed facto. Lyra. Non docentis imperio, sed conversationis exemplo. Gloss. Ord. ibid. Why compellest thou the Gentiles to Iudaize?

Lastly, It is to be considered, whether it may be enough for a Pastor, not to meddle with these things: and whether he be not in conscience bound, especially in case he live among a people distracted in Opinions, to declare himself expresly either for them or against them. If they be ut­terly unlawful, and he know it so; how is he not bound in conscience to reprove those that use them, or require them? Otherwise he betrayeth the Otherwise what else do we but deny and betray the truth? Def. of Min. Reas part 1. Pref. to the Reader. truth of God by his silence, and suffereth men to go on in their super­stition without rebuke. But if he be sufficiently resolved of their lawfulness, how is he not bound in conscience to reprove those that refuse them, or op­pose 4. them? Otherwise he betrayeth the peace of the Church by his silence, and suffereth men to go on in their disobedience without rebuke. Nay more, e­very Minister that hath received Pastoral Charge, hath twice or thrice (if not oftener) witnessed his allowance of all and singular the 39. Articles of the Church of England. Once at his Ordination before the Bishop; then at his Institution into his Benefice, before his Ordinary; and both these by Subscription under his Hand; and then after upon his Induction before his own Flock; and that by verbal Approbation. By which Subscription and Approbation, he hath not only acknowledged Artic. 20. in the Church the power of ordaining Rites and Ceremonies, Artic. 20. but he hath after a sort also bound himself Artic. 34. openly to rebuke such as willingly and purposely break the Traditions and Ceremonies of the Church, as offenders against the common Orders of the Church, and wounders of the consciences of the weak Brethren, Artic. 34. He then that, for any respect whatsoever, is meal­mouth'd in these things, wherein he is bound both in Conscience, and by virtue of his own voluntary Act to speak freely, neither is constant to his own hand and tongue, nor is Heb. 3. 2. faithful in Gods House, as was Moses, in discharging a good Conscience, and revealing unto his people Acts 20. 27. the whole Counsel of God.

Thus have I endeavoured, having the opportunity of this place (as I38. held my self both in Conscience, and in regard of my Subscription, bound) to deliver my Opinion freely, so far as my Text gave occasion, concerning the Ceremonial Constitutions of our Church; and therein laboured to free, not only the Conformer from all unjust censures; but even the Non-con­former also, so far as he hath reason to expect it, from all scandalous de­spisings. I beseech you pardon my length, if I have been troublesome, I had much to say, and the matter was weighty; and I desired to give some satisfaction in it to those that are contrary-minded; and I have no purpose (for any thing I know) at all to trouble this place any more hereafter. Let us all now humbly beseech Almighty God to grant a blessing to what hath been presently taught and heard, that it may work in the hearts of us all charitable affections one towards another, due obedience to lawful Autho­rity, and a conscionable care to walk in our several Callings faithfully, pain­fully, and peaceably, to the comfort of our own Souls, the edification of God's Church, and the glory of the ever blessed Trinity, the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, Three Persons and One God: To whom be ascribed by us and the whole Church, as is most due, the Kingdom, the Power, and the Glory, for ever and ever.

Amen.

AD CLERUM.
The Second Sermon.
At a Visitation at Boston, Lincoln, 24^th. April, 1621.

A Little before, at the fourth Verse, St. Paul had delivered1. a Conclusion sound and comfortable and strengthned it from David's both experience and testimony in That thou mightest be ju­stified in thy sayings, and mightest over­come when thou art judg­ed, Psal. 51. 4. Psal. 51. A place pregnant and full of sinews to in­force it. The Conclusion in effect was, That Nothing in Man can annul the Covenant of God. Neither the ori­ginal unworthiness of God's Children, through the u­niversal corruption of Nature; nor their actual unfaithfulness bewrayed (through frailty) in particular trials, can alienate the free love of God from them, or cut them off from the Covenant of Grace; but that still God will be glorified in the truth and faithfulness of his promises, notwithstanding any unrighteousness or unfaithfulness in Man.

But never yet was any Truth so happily innocent, as to maintain it self2. free from Calumny and Abuse. Malice on the one hand, and Fleshliness on the other, though with different aims, yet do the same Work. They both pervert the Truth, by drawing pestilent Corollaries from sound Con­clusions; as the Spider sucketh poyson from medicinable Herbs. But with this difference; Malice slandereth the Truth, to discountenance it; but Fleshliness abuseth the Truth, to countenance it self by it. The ca­villing Sophister, he would fain bring the Apostles gracious Doctrine into Discredit: The carnal Libertine, he would as fain bring his own ungra­cious [Page 22] behaviour into credit. Both, by making false (yet colourable) Inferences from the former Conclusion. There are Triplex inconveniens, Lyranus hic. three of those Infe­rences; but never a good. The First: If so, then cannot God in reason and justice take vengeance of our unrighteousness. The Colour: for why1. should he punish us for that, which so much magnifieth and commendeth his righteousness? [Verse 5. But if our unrighteousness commend the righteousness of God, what shall we say? Is God unrighteous that taketh vengeance?] The Second Inference: If so, then it is unjust either in God or Man to con­demn2. us as sinners, for breaking the Law. The Colour: for why should that action be censured of sin, which so abundantly redoundeth to the glory of God? [Verse 7. For if the truth of God hath more▪ abounded through my lye unto his glory, why yet am I also judged as a sinner?] The Third, and3. last, and worst Inference: If so, then it is a good and wise resolution, Let us sin freely, and boldly commit evil. The Colour: for why should we fear to do that, from which so much good may come? In this Verse of my Text [And not rather, let us do evil that good may come.]

This last cavilling Inference, the Apostle in this Verse both bringeth in, and casteth out again: bringeth in as an objection, and casteth out by his an­swer. An answer which at once cutteth off both it, and the former Infe­rences. And the Answer is double; Ad rem, ad hominem. That concern­eth the force and matter of the Objection; this the state, and danger of the Objectors. Ad rem, in the former part of the Verse [And not rather (as we be slanderously reported, and us some affirm that we say) Let us do e­vil that good may come:] Ad hominem, in the latter end [Whose damnation is just.] In the former part there is an Objection, and the Rejection of it. The Objection. And not rather, Let us do evil that good may come. The Rejection thereof with a Non sequitur; implying not only the bare incon­sequence of it upon the Apostles conclusion, but withal, and especially the falsness and unsoundness of it taken by it self; As we be slanderously reported, and as some affirm that we say, Let us do evil, &c.

My aim at this present is to insist especially upon a Principle of practick 4. Divinity; which by joynt consent of Writers old and new, Orthodox and Popish, resulteth from the very body of this Verse, and is of right good use to direct us in sundry difficulties, which daily arise in vita communi, in point of Conscience. The Principle is this, We must not do any evil, that any good may come of it. Yet there are besides this, in the Text divers o­ther inferior Observations not to be neglected. With which I think it will not be amiss to begin, and to dispatch them first briefly; that so I may fall the sooner, and stay the longer upon that which I mainly in­tend.

Observe first the Apostle's Method, and substantial manner of proceed­ing:Observ. I. how he cleareth all as he goeth; how diligent he is and careful,7. betimes to remove such cavils (though he Propter hos arguendos fecit Paulus hic quasi digressio­nem tractando haec. Cajetan. stept a little out of his way for it) as might bring scandal to the Truth he had delivered. When we Preach and instruct others, we should not think it enough to deliver posi­tive Truths: but we should also take good care, as near as we can, to leave them clear; and by prevention to stop the mouths of such as love to pick quarrels at the truth, and to bark against the light. It were good we would (so far as our leisure and gifts will permit) wisely forecast, and prevent all Offence that might be taken at any part of God's Truth; and be careful as not to broach any thing that is false, through rashness, errour or intempe­rance; so not to betray any truth by ignorant handling, or by superficial, slight, and unsatisfying answers. But then especially concerneth it us to [Page 23] be most careful herein; when we have to speak before such, as we have some cause before hand to suspect to be, through ignorance, or weakness, or custom, or education, or prejudice, or partial affections, or otherwise contrary minded unto, or at leastwise not well perswaded of, those Truths we are to teach. If the ways be rough and knotty, and the passengers be feeble joynted and dark-sighted, it is but needful the Guides should re­move as many blocks and stones out of the way, as may be. When we have gone as warily as we can to Work, Cavillers (if they list) will take exceptions: it is our part to see we give them no advantage; lest we help to justifie the Principals, by making our selves Accessories. Those men are ill advised, however zealous for the Truth, that stir in controverted points, and leave them worse than they found them. Aut animo demos, aut viri­bus addas. Di­ctum Archi­dami ad fili­um, apud Plutarch. in Laconicis. ‘A Stomach will not bear out a matter without strength: and to encounter an adversary are required As Zuin­glius said of Carolostadius whom he judged too weak to un­dertake the defence of the truth against Luther in the point of con­substantiation. Non satis hu­merorum habet. Sleiden. Shoulders as well as Gall. A good cause is never betrayed more, than when it is prosecuted with much eagerness, but little sufficiency.’ This from the Method.

Observe secondly, the Apostles manner of speech, [...], Translators render it, As we are wrongfully blamed. As we are slandered. As 6. we are slanderously reported. And the word indeed from the [...]. OriginalObserv. II. importeth no more; and so Writers both profane and sacred use it. But yet in Scriptures by a specialty it most times signifieth the highest degree of Slander; when we open our mouths against God, and speak ill, or a­miss, or unworthily of God; that is, [...], and properly, the sin we call Blasphemy. And yet that very word of Blasphemy, which for the most part referreth immediately to God, the Apostle here useth, when he speak­eth of himself and other Christian Ministers, [...], as we are slandered, nay, as we are blasphemed. A slander or other wrong, or contempt done to a Minister, qua talis, is a sin of an higher strain than the same done to a Common Christian. Not at all for his persons sake; for so he is no more God's good creature than the other; no more free [...]. Acts 14. 15. & Jam. 5. 17. from sins, and infirmities, and passions, than the other. But for his Calling's sake; for so he is Gods 2 Cor. 5. 20. Embassadour, which the other is not: and for his works sake; for that is Gods 1 Thes. 2. 13. Message, which the others is not. Per­sonal Slanders and Contempts are to a Minister, but as to another man; be­cause his person is but as another mans person. But slanders and contempts done to him as a Minister, that is, with reference either to his Calling or Doctrine, are much greater than to another man: as reaching unto God himself, whose person the Minister representeth in his Calling; and whose errand the Minister delivereth in his Doctrine. For Contempt S. Paul: is express elsewhere; 1 Thes. 4. 8. He that despiseth, despiseth not man, but God. And as for Slanders, the very choice of the word in my Text inferreth as much. The dignity of our Calling inhaunceth the sin; and every slander against our regular Doctrines, is more than a bare Calumny; if no more, at least, petty We have heard him speak blasphe­mous words against Moses and against God. blasphemy, [...], as we are slandered, as we are blas­phemed. That from the word.

Observe Thirdly, the wrong done to the Apostle and to his Doctrine. HeActs 6. 11. was slanderously reported to have taught that which he never so much as7. Observ. III. thought: and his Doctrine had many scandalous imputations fastened up­on it, whereof neither he nor it were guilty [As we are slanderously re­ported, and as some affirm that we say.] The best Truths are subject to mis-interpretation: and there is not that Doctrine, how firmly soever grounded, how warily soever delivered, whereon Calumny will not fa­sten, and stick slanderous imputations. Neither Matth. 11. 17, 19. Iohn's Mourning, nor [Page 24] Christ's piping can pass the Pikes: but the one hath a Devil, the other is a Glutton and a Wine-bibber. Though Matth. 5. 17. Christ come to fulfil the Law, yet there he will accuse him as a destroyer of the Law, Matth. 5. And though he decide the question plainly for Caesar, and that in the case of Tribute, Matth. 22. [Matth. 22. 21. Give unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's] yet there be that charge him, as if he John 19. 12. spake against Caesar, Iohn 19. and that in the very case of Tribute, as if he Luk. 23. 2. forbad to give Tribute to Caesar, Luk. 23. Now if they Matth. 10. 25. called the Master of the House Beelzebub, how much more them of his Houshold? If Christ's did not, think we the Doctrine of his Ministers and his Servants could escape the stroke of mens tongues, and be free from calumny and cavil? How the Apostles were slandered as Se­ducers and Sectaries, and vain Bablers, and Hereticks, and Broachers of new and false and pestilent Doctrines, their Epistles, and the Book of their Acts witness abundantly to us. And for succeeding times, read but the Apologies of Athenagoras, and Tertullian, and others: and it will amaze you to see what Blasphemous, and Seditious, and Odious, and Horrible Impieties were fathered upon the Ancient Christian Doctors, and upon their Profession. But our own experience goeth beyond all. Sundry of the Doctors of our Church teach truly, and agreeably to Scripture the Acts 17. 28. & Esay 16. 12. effectual concurrence of God's Will and Power, with subordinate Agents in every, and therefore even in sinful actions; God's Rom. 9. 11. 15. 18, &c. free Election of those whom he purposeth to save of his own grace, without any motives in, or from themselves; the immutability of God's Joh. 13. 1. Rom. 11. 29. & 5. 9, 10. & 8. 35, 38, 39. Love and Grace to­wards the Saints Elect, and their certain perseverance therein unto Salva­tion; the Rom. 3. 28. Iustification of sinners by the imputed righteousness of Christ, apprehended and applyed unto them by a lively faith, without the works of the Law. These are sound, and true, and (if rightly understood) comfortable, and right profitable Doctrines. And yet they of the Church of Rome have the forehead (I will not say to slander, my Text alloweth more) to blaspheme God and his Truth, and the Ministers thereof for teaching them. Bellarmine, Gretser, Maldonat, and the Jesuits; but none more than our own English Fugitives, Bristow, Stapleton, Parsons, Kelli­son, and all the Rabble of that Crew, freely spend their mouths in barking against us, as if we made God the author of sin: as if we would have men sin and be damned by a Stoical fatal necessity; sin whether they will or no, and be damned whether they deserve it or no; as if we opened a gap to all licentiousness and profaneness; let them believe, it is no matter how they live, Heaven is their own cock-sure: as if we cryed down good works, and condemned charity. Slanders loud and false, yet easily blown away with one single word, [...]. These imputations upon us and our Doctrine are unjust; but [...], let them that thus mis-report us, know, that without repentance, their damnation will be just.

It would be time not ill spent, to discover the grounds of this obser­vation,8. and to press the uses of it something fully. But because my aim lyeth another way; I can but point at them, and pass. If seldom Truth scape unslandered, marvel not: the reasons are evident. On God's part, on Man's part, on the Devil's part. ‘God suffereth, Man raiseth, and the Devil furthereth these slanders against the Truth.’ To begin ordine re­trogrado, and to take them backwards. First, on the Devil's part; aI. kind of Contrariety and Antipathy betwixt him and it. He being the Joh. 8. 44. Father of Lyes, and Eph. 6. 12. Prince of darkness, cannot away with the Truth, and with the Light: and therefore casteth up slanders, as Fogs and Mists against the Truth to bely it, and against the Light to darken it. Secondly,II. [Page 25] on Mans part: And that partly in the understanding; when the judgment, 1. either of it self weak, or else weakned through precipitancy, prejudice, or otherwise, is deceived with fallacies instead of substance, and mistaketh2. seeming inferences for necessary and natural deductions. Partly in the Will: when men of corrupt minds set themselves purposely against the known truth, and out of malicious wilfulness (against the strong testimony of their own hearts) slander it, that so they may disgrace it, and them3. that profess it. Partly in the Affections; when men, overcome by carnal affections, are content to cheat their own souls, by giving such constructi­ons to God's Truth, as will, for requital, give largest allowance to their practices; and so rather choose to crooken the Rule to their own bent, than to level themselves and their affections and lives according to the Rule. Thirdly, on God's part; who suffereth his own truth to be slandered andObserv. III. mistaken. Partly in his Iustice, as a fearful judgment 2 Thess. 1. 10, 11, 12. upon wicked ones,1. whereby their hard hearts become yet more hardened, and their most just condemnation yet more just. Partly in his goodness, as a powerful2. fiery trial of true Doctors, whose constancy and sincerity is the more 1 Cor. 11. 19. approved with him, and the more eminent with men, if they John 10. 12. flee not when the Wolf cometh, but keep their standing, and stoutly maintain God's Truth, when it is deepliest slandered and hotly opposed. And partly,3. in his Wisdom, as a rich occasion for those whom he hath gifted for it, 2 Tim. 1. 6. [...], to awaken their zeal, to quicken up their industry, to muster up their abilities, to scour up their spiritual armour, (which else through dis-use might gather rust) for the defence and for the rescue of that 1 Tim. 6. 20. & 2 Tim. 1. 14. [...], that precious truth whereof they are depositaries, and wherewith he hath entrusted them.

These are the Grounds. The Uses, for instruction, briefly are, to teach9. and admonish every one of us; that we be not either; first, so wickedly1. malicious, as without apparent cause to raise any slander; or secondly, so2. foolishly credulous, as without severe examination, to believe any slander; or thirdly, so basely timorous, as to flinch from any part of3. God's truth for any slander. But I must not insist. This from the slander.

Observe fourthly, how peremptory the Apostle is in his censure against10. the slanderers or abusers of holy truths: Whose damnation is just. Observ. IV.

Ambrosius, Lyra, Piscator, Pareus, &c. Some understand it with reference to the slanderers; As we be slander, ously reported, and as some affirm that we say: whose damnation is just: that is, their damnation is just, who thus unjustly slander us.

Chrysostomus, Cajetanus, E­rasmus, &c. Others understand it with reference to that ungodly resolution: Let us do evil, that good may come: whose damnation is just: that is, their damnation is just for the evil they do, who adventure to do any evil, un­der whatsoever pretence of good to come of it. Both expositions are good; and I rather embrace both, than prefer either. I ever held it a kind of honest spiritual thirst; where there are two sences given of one place, both agreeable to the Analogy of Faith and Manners, both so indifferently appliable to the words and scope of the place, as that it is hard to say, which was rather intended; though there was but one intended, yet to make use of both. And so will we. Take it the first way: and the slanderer may read his doom in it. Here is his wages and his portion, and the meed and reward of his slander; Damnation. And it is a just reward. He condemneth God's truth unjustly: God condemneth him justly for it, [whose damnation is just.] If we be countable (and we are countable at the day of Judgment) for Mat. 12. 36. every idle word we speak; though neither in it self [Page 26] false, nor yet hurtful and prejudicial unto others: what less than damna­tion can they expect, that with much falsehood for the thing it self, and infinite prejudice in respect of others, blaspheme God and his holy Truth?

But if it be done on purpose, and in malice to despight the Truth, and11. the professors thereof: I scarce know whether there be a greater sin or no. Maliciously to oppose the known Truth, is by most Divines account­ed a principal branch of that great unpardonable sin, the sin against the holy Ghost: by some, the very sin it self. I dare not say it is so; nor yet that it is unpardonable, or hath final impenitency necessarily attending it: I would be loth to interclude the hope of Repentance from any sinner; or to confine God's Mercy within any bounds. Yet thus much I think I may safely say; it cometh shrewdly near the sin against the holy Ghost, and is a fair (or rather a foul) step toward it, and leaveth very little hope of par­don. That great sin against the Holy Ghost, the Holy Ghost it self in the Scriptures chuseth, rather than by any other, to express by this name of Matth. 12. 31, 32. Blasphemy, Matth. 12. And whereas our Apostle, 1 Tim. 1. saith, That though he were a Blasphemer, yet 1 Tim. 1. 13. he obtained mercy, because he did it ignorantly in unbelief: he leaveth it questionable, but withal suspici­ous, whether there may be any hope of Mercy for such as blaspheme maliciously, and against knowledge. If any mans be, certainly such a mans damnation is most just.

But not all Slanderers of God's Truth are of that deep dye: not all12. Slanderers sinners in that high degree. God forbid they should. There, are respects which much qualifie and lessen the sin. But yet allow it any in the least degree, and with the most favourable circumstances, still the Apostles sentence standeth good: Without Repentance their damnation is just. Admit the Truth be dark and difficult, and so easily to be mi­staken: admit withal the man be weak and ignorant, and so apt to mi­stake; his understanding being neither distinct through incapacity to ap­prehend and sort things aright, nor yet constant to it self through un­settledness and levity of judgment. Certainly his misprision of the Truth is so much Involuntari­um minuit de ratione peccati. lesser, than the others wilful Calumny; as it proceedeth less from the irregularity of the Will to the judgment. And of such a man there is good hope, that both in time he may see his errour, and repent ex­presly and particularly for it; and that in the mean time he doth repent for it implicite, and inclusively in his general contrition for, and confession of, the massie lump of his hidden and Psal. 19. 12. secret and unknown sins. This Chari­ty bindeth us both to hope for the future, and to think for the present: and S. Paul's example and words in the 1 Tim. 1. 13. place but now alledged, are very comfortable to this purpose. But yet still thus much is certain: He that through ignorance, or for want of apprehension or judgment, or by reason of whatsoever other defect or motive, bringeth a slander upon any divine Truth, though never so perplexed with difficulties, or open to ca­vil: unless he repent for it, either in the particular, (and that he must do if ever God open his eyes, and let him see his fault) or at leastwise in the general; it is still a damnable sin in him; His damnation is just. We have the very case almost in terminis laid down, and thus resolved in 2 Pet. 3. 2 Pet. 3. 18. In which are some things hard to be understood, (observe the condition of the things; hard to be understood) which they that are unlearned and un­stable, (observe also the condition of the persons, unlearned and unstable) wrest, as they do also the other Scriptures, to their own destruction. Where we have the matter of great difficulty, hard to be understood; the persons [Page 27] of small sufficiency, unlearned and unstable: and yet if men, even of that weakness wrest and preve [...]t truths, though of that hardness, they do it [...], to their own destruction, saith S. Peter there [...] their own just damnation, saith S. Paul in my Text. This from the Cen­sure in the first sence.

Take it in the other sence, with reference to this ungodly resolution,13. Let us do evil, that good may come: it teacheth us that no pretension of doing it (in ordine ad Deum, for God's glory,) to a good end, or any o­ther colour whatsoever, can excuse those that presume to do evil; but that still the evil they do is damnable, and it is but just with God to render damnation to them for it. [Whose damnation is just.] And thus under­stood▪ it openeth us away to the consideration of that main Principle whereof I spake, and whereon by your patience I desire to spend the re­mainder of my time; namely this: We must not for any good, do any evil. For the farther opening, and better understanding whereof, (since the rule is of infinite use in the whole practice of our lives;) that we may the better know▪ when, and where, and how far to apply it aright for the direction of our Consciences and Actions; we must of necessity unfold the extent of this word evil, and consider the several kinds and degrees of it distinctly and a part. We must not do evil, that good may come.

First, evil is of two sorts. The evil of fault, and the evil of punish­ment. 14. Malum delicti, and Malum supplicii; as Tertul. l. 2. adv. Marcion. cap. 14. Tertullian calleth them: or, as the more received terms are, Malum Culpae, and Malum Poenae. The evil we commit against God, and the evil God inflicteth upon us. The evil we do, unjustly, but yet willingly: and the evil we suffer, unwilling­ly, but yet justly. In a word, the evil of sin, and the evil of pain. Touch­ing evils of pain; if the Case be put, When two such evils are propound­ed, and both cannot be avoided, whether we may not make choice of the one, to avoid the other. The resolution is Inter ha [...] da­tur electio: & minus dam­num facere li­cet, ut evitetur majus. Pareus hîc. common and good from the old Maxim, E malis minimum, we may incur the less, to prevent the greater evil. ‘As we may deliver our purse to a Thief, rather than fight upon unequal terms to save it: and in a tempest cast our wares into the Sea, to lighten the ship that it wreck not: and endure the lancing and searching of an old sore, to keep it from festering and spreading.’ And this Principle in my Text is not a rule for that Case: that being propound­ed concerning evils of pain; whereas my Text is intended only of the evils of sin. We are here hence resolved, that we are not to do any evil, that good may come of it. for all which yet we may suffer some evil, that good may come of it. Although (to note that by the way) the common answer è malis minimum, even in the evils of pain, is to be under­stood (as most other practical conclusions are) not as simply and vniversally, but as commonly and ordinarily true. For (as Slater on this place. one saith well) perhaps there are Cases, wherein two evils of Pain being at once propounded, it may not be safe for us to be our own carvers.

But I must let pass the Questions concerning the evils of Pain, as imper­tinencies. The evils of sin are of two sorts. Some are evil formally, simply, and per se; such as are directly against the scope and purpose of some of Gods Commandments: as Polytheism against the first, Idolatry a­gainst the second, and so against the rest, Blasphemy, Prophaneness, Disloy­alty, Cruelty, Adultery, Injustice, Calumny, Avarice, and the like; all which are evil in their own nature, and can never (positis quibuscunque circumstantiis) be done well. Othersome are evil only respectively, and by accident: but otherwise in their own nature indifferent, and such as [Page 28] may be, and are done sometimes well, sometimes ill. To know the na­ture of which things the better, since they are of singular use for the re­solution of many Cases of Conscience: we must yet more distinctly inquire into the different kinds (or rather degrees) of indifferent things; and in­to the different means, whereby things otherwise in nature indifferent, be­come accidentally evil for their use.

Indifferent things are either equally, or unequally such. We may call16. them for distinctions sake (and I think not altogether unfitly) [...]. indiffe­rentia ad utrumlibet; and [...]. indifferentia ad unum. Indifferentia ad utrum­libet, or equally indifferent things, are such, as (barely considered) are ar­bitrary either way, and hang in aequilibrio, between good and evil, with­out turning the Scale either one way or other, as not having any notable inclination or propension unto either rather than other: as to drink fasting, to walk into the fields, or to lift up ones hands unto his head, &c. Now concerning such things as these, if any man should be so scrupulons, as to make a matter of conscience of them, and should desire to be resolv­ed in point of Conscience whether they were good or evil; as namely, whether he should do well or ill, to walk abroad into the field a mile or two with his friend, the thing it self is so equally indifferent, that it were resolution enough to leave it in medio, and to answer him, there were neither good nor hurt in it: the Action of walking, barely considered, be­ing not considerably either morally good, or morally evil. ‘I say [morally;] for in matter of health, or civility, or otherwise, it may be good, or evil: but not Quia eorum objectum non includit ali­quid pertinens ad ordinem ra­tionis. Aquin. 1. 2 qu. 18. art. 8. in corp. morally, and spiritually, and in matter of Conscience.’ And I say withal [barely considered] for there may be circumstances, which may make it accidentally evil. As to walk abroad in the fields, when a man should be at Divine service in the Church, is by accident morally evil, through the circumstance of Time: as, on the contrary, ‘not to walk, if we have promised to meet a friend at such a time, and in such a place, who standeth in need of our present help, is by accident morally evil, through the obligation of that former promise.’ But yet still, these and other circumstances set aside, barely to walk, or barely not to walk, and the like, are Indifferentia ad utrumlibet, things in their own nature (and that equally) indifferent.

Things unequally indifferent are such, as though they be neither univer­sally 17. good, nor absolutely evil; yet even barely considered, sway more or less rather the one way than the other. And that either unto good, or un­to evil. Of the former sort are such outward actions, as being in Moral Precepts indefinitely commanded, are yet sometimes sinfully and ill done: as giving an Alms, hearing a Sermon, reproving an Offender, and the like. Which are in themselves good; and so to be accounted, rather than evil, though some unhappy circumstance or other may make them ill. Of the latter sort are such outward actions, as being in Moral Precepts inde­finitely prohibited, are yet in some cases lawful, and may be well done: as, swearing an oath, travelling on the Sabbath day, playing for Money, and the like. Which are in themselves rather evil than good, because they are ever evil, unless all circumstances concur to make them good. Now of these actions, though the former sort carry the face of good, the latter of evil; yet in very truth both sorts are indifferent. Understand me a­right: I do not mean indifferent indifferentiâ contradictionis, such as may be indifferently either done, or not done; but indifferent only indiffe­rentia contrarietatis, such as (suppose the doing) may be indifferently either good or evil: because, so they may be done, as to be good; and so [Page 29] they may be done also, as to be evil. But yet with this difference, that those former, though indifferent, and in some cases evil, are yet of them­selves notably and eminently inclined unto good rather than evil; and these latter proportionably unto evil rather than good. From which difference it cometh to pass, that to the Question barely proposed concerning the former actions, whether they be good or evil; the answer is just and war­rantable, to say indefinitely they are good: and contrarily concerning the latter actions, to say indefinitely they are evil.

Which difference well weighed (to note that by the way) would serve18. to justifie a common practice of most of us in the exercise of our Ministry against such as distaste our doctrine for it, or unjustly otherwise take of­fence at it. Ordinarily in our Sermons we indefinitely condemn as evil, swearing, and gaming for money, and dancing, and recreations upon the Sabbath day, and going to Law, and retaliation of injuries, and Monopo­lies, and raising of Rents, and taking forfeiture of bonds, &c. and in our own coat Non-residency and Pluralities. Most of which yet, and many other of like nature, most of us do, or should, know to be in some cases lawful; and therefore in the number of those indifferent things which we call Indifferentia ad unum. You that are our hearers should bring so much charitable discretion with you, when you hear us in the Pulpits con­demn things of this nature, as to understand us no otherwise, than we either do or should mean, and that is thus: that such and such things are evil, as now a days, through the corruptions of the times, most men use them, and such as therefore should not be adventured upon without ma­ture and unpartial disquisition of the uprightness ‘of our affections there­in, and a severe tryal of all circumstances whether they carry weight enough with them to give our consciences Let every man be fully perswaded ( [...]) in his own mind, ver. 5. sufficient security, not on­ly of their lawfulness in themselves, and at large, but of their particular lawfulness too unto us, and them.’ But this by the way.

Now to proceed. There are divers means whereby things not simply 19. evil, but in themselves (either equally or unequally) indifferent, may yet become accidentally evil. Any defect or obliquity, any unhappy interve­ning circumstance is enough to poyson a right good action, and to make it stark naught. I may as well hope to grasp the Sea, as to comprehend all those means. I make choice therefore to remember but a few of the chiefest; such as happen oft, and are very considerable. Things not simply evil, may accidentally become such; as by sundry other means, so especially by one of these three: Conscience, Scandal, and Comparison. First. Conscience, in regard of the Agent. Though the thing be good,1. yet if the Agent do it with a condemning, or but a doubting Conscience, the Action becometh evil. [Rom. 14. 14. To him that esteemeth any thing to be un­clean, to him it is unclean; and Ibid. v. 23. he that doubteth, is damned if he eat, because he eateth not of faith, chap. 14. of this Epistle.] Secondly, Scandal; 2. in regard of other men. Though the thing be good, yet if a brother Ibid. ver. 21. stumble, or be offended, or be made weak by it, the action becometh evil. [Ibid. ver. 20. All things are pure; but it is evil for that man who eateth with offence, ver. 20. there.] Thirdly, Comparison in regard of other actions. 3. Though the thing be good, yet if we prefer it before better things, and neglect or omit them for it, the action becometh evil, [Matth. 9. 13. Go, and learn what that is, I will have mercy and not sacrifice: Matth. 9.]

The stuff thus prepared, by differencing out those things, which undi­stinguished, 20. might breed confusion; our next business must be, to lay the rule, and to apply it to the several kinds of evil, as they have been diffe­renced. [Page 30] I foresaw we should not have time to go thorow all that was in­tended: and therefore we will content our selves for this time, with the consideration of this Rule, applied to things simply evil. In them the Rule holdeth perpetually, and without exception: that which is simply evil, may not for any good be done. We know not any greater good (for there is not any greater good) than the Glory of God: we scarce know a lesser sin (if any sin may be accounted little) than a harmless officious lye. Yet may not Vide fusè Augustinum in lib. de Men­dacio, & con­tra Mendacium, & alibi. this be done; no not for that. Will you speak wickedly for God, and talk deceitfully for him? Job 13. 7. If not for the glory of God; then certainly not for any other inferiour end: not for the saving of a life, not for the Ad sempiter­nam salutem nullus ducen­dus est, opitu­lante menda­cio. Aug. de Mend. ca. 19. conversion of a Soul, not for the peace of a Church, and (if even that were possible too) not for the redemption of a world. No Ea quae con­stat esse pecca­ta, nullo bonae causae obtentu, nullo quasi bo­no fine, nulla velut bona in­tentione faci­enda sunt. Aug. contra Mendac. c. 7. intention of any end can warrant the choice of sinful means to com­pass it.

The Reasons are strong. One is; because sin in its own nature, is Suapte natu­ra repugnat peccato quod sit eligibile: & propterea, nec propter aliud bonum, est eligi­bile, Cajet. in hunc locum. de numero ineligibilium: and therefore as not eligible propter se, for its own sake, (there is neither form nor beauty in it, that we should desire it;) so neither propter aliud, with reference to any farther end. Actus peccati non est ordinabilis in bonum finem; is the common resolution of the Schools. In civil and popular elections, if men make choice of such a person, to bear any office or place among them, as by the local Charters, Ordinances, Sta­tutes, or other Customs which should rule them in their choice, is altogether ineligible, the election is de jure nulla, naught and void; the incapacity of the person elected making a nullity in the act of election. No less is it in21. moral actions and elections, if for any intended end we make choice of such means, as by the Law of God (which is our rule, and must guide us) are ineligible; and such is every sin.

Another reason is grounded upon that Principle,Aquin. 1. se­cundae, qu. 18. art. 4. ad 3. & qu. 19. art. 6. ad 1, ex Diony­sio c. 4. de Di­vin. nomin. Bonum ex causa in­tegra, Malum ex partiali. Any partial or particular defect, in Object, End, Manner, or other Circumstance, is enough to make the whole action bad; but to make it good, there must be an universal non est actio bona simplici­ter, nisi omnes bonit [...]tes con­currant: sed. quilibet defe­ctus singularis causat malum. Aquin. 1. 2. qu. 18. art. 4. ad 3. concurrence of22. all requisite conditions in every of these respects: As a disfigured eye, or nose, or lip, maketh the face deformed; but to make it comely there is re­quired the due proportion of every part. ‘And any one short Clause or Proviso, not legal, is sufficient to abate the whole Writ or Instrument, though in every other part absolute and without exception.’ The inten­tion then, be it granted never so good, is unsufficient to warrant an Action good, so long as it faileth either in the object, or manner, or any requisite circumstance whatsoever. 1 Sam. 15. 20, &c. Saul pretended a good end, inspring the fat things of Amaleck, that he might therewith do sacrifice to the Lord: but God rejected both it and him, 1 Sam. 15. We can think no other, but that 2 Sam. 6. 6. Uzzah intended the safety of Gods Ark, when it tottered in the Cart, and he stretched out his hand to stay it from falling: but God inter­preted it a presumption, and punished it, 2 Sam. 6. Doubtless Matth. 16. 22, 23. Peter meant no hurt to Christ, but rather good; when he took him aside, and advised him to be good to himself, and to keep him out of danger: yet Christ rebuked him for it, and sent him packing in the Devils name, Get thee be­hind me Satan, Matth. 16.

But what will we say (and let that stand for a third reason) if our pretended good intention prove indeed no good intention? And cer­tainly, be it as fair and glorious, as we could be content to imagine it; such it will prove to be, if it set us upon any sinful or unwarranted means: indeed no good intention, but a bad. For, granted it must be, [Page 31] that the Intention of any end doth virtually include the means: as in a Syllogism, the premises do the Conclusion. No more then can the choice of ill means proceed from a good intention, than can a false Conclusion be inferred from true Premises: and that is impossible. ‘From which ground it is, that the Greg. lib. 28. Moral. cap. 13. Euseb. Emiss. hom. 26. and others. Fathers, and other Divines do oftentimes argue from the Intention to the Action, and from the goodness of the one, to the goodness of both: to that purpose applying those speeches of our Saviour, in the twelfth, and in the Sixth of Matthew, Matth. 12. 33. Either make the tree good, and his fruit good, or else make the tree corrupt, and his fruit corrupt; And, Matth. 6. 22. If thine eye be single, thy whole body shall be full of light: but if thine eye be evil, thy whole body shall be full of darkness.’ The light of the body is the eye; and of the work the intention. No marvel, when the eye is evil, if the whole body be dark; and when the intention is evil, if the whole work be naught. That which deceiveth most men in judg­ing of good or bad intentions, is, that they take the end and the intention for one and the same thing: betwixt which two there is a spacious diffe­rence. For the end, is the thing propter quid, for which we work, that whereat we aim in working, and so hath rationem causae finalis: but the intention is the cause à qua, from which we work, that which setteth us on working; and so hath rationem causae efficientis. ‘Now between these two kinds of causes, the final and the efficient, there is not only a great difference, but even a repugnancy; in such sort, as that it is impossible they should at any time coincidere, which some other kinds of causes may do.’ It is therefore an errour to think, that if the end be good, the intention of that end must needs be good: for there may as well be Sed videte ne fortè non sit verè oculus simplex qui fallatur. Bern. de praecept. & dispensat. a bad intention of a good end, as a bad desire of a good object. Whatso­ever the end be we intend, it is certain, that intention cannot be good, which putteth us upon the choice of evil means.

Methinks the Church of Rome should blush, (if her forehead dyed red22. with the blood of God's Saints, were capable of any tincture of shame) at the discovery of her manifold impostures, in counterfeiting of Reliques, in coyning of Miracles, in compiling of Legends, in gelding of good Au­thors by expurgatory indexes, in jugling with Magistrates by lewd equi­vocations, &c. Practices warrantable by no pretence. Yet in their ac­count but Sancta Hyp [...]-crisis was Do­minicus his word. piae fraudes; for so they term them, no less ridiculously than falsly: for the one word contradicteth the other. But what do I speak of these, but petty things, in comparison of those her lowder Impieties? breaking covenants of truce and peace; dissolving of lawful, and dispens­ing for unlawful marriages; assoyling Subjects from their Oaths and Allegi­ance; plotting Treasons, and practising Rebellions; excommunicating and dethroning Kings; arbitrary disposing of Kingdoms; stabbing and mur­thering of Princes; warranting unjust invasions; and blowing up Parlia­ment houses. For all which, and divers other foul attempts, their Catho­lick defence is the advancement (forsooth) of the Catholick Cause: Like his in the Poet, Horat. lib. 1. Epist. 1. Quocunque modorem, is their Resolution: by right, or wrong, Gaudeo sive per veritatem, sive per occasio­nem, Romanae Ecclesiae digni­tatem extolli. Joseph. Ste­phanus de Osc. pe. in E­pist. ad lect. the State of the Papacy must be upheld. That is their unum necessarium: and if heaven favour not, rather than fail, help must be had from hell, to keep Antichrist in his throne.

But to let them pass, and touch nearer home. There are (God know­eth) many Ignorants abroad in the world: some of them so unreasonable, as to think they have non▪ plus'd any reprover; if being admonished of something ill done, they have but returned this poor reply, Is it not bet­ter to do so, than to do worse? but also, what necessity of doing either so 25. [Page 32] or worse; when Gods law bindeth thee from both; ‘He that said, [...] James 2. 10, 11. Do not commit adultery; said also, Do not kill: and he that said, Do not steal; said also, Do not lye. If then thou lye, or kill, or do any other sin; though thou thinkest thereby to avoid stealth, or adultery, orsome other sin: yet thou art become a transgressor of the Law, and by offending in one point of it, guilty of all. It is but a poor choice, when a man is desperately resolved to cast himself away; whether he should rather hang, or drown, or stab, or pine himself to death: there may be more horrour, more pain, more lingring in one than another; but they all come to one period, and determine in the same point; death is the issue of them all. And it can be but a slender comfort for a man, that will needs thrust himself into the mouth of hell by sinning wilfully, that he is damned rather for lying, than for stealing, or whoring, or killing, or some greater crime: Damnation is the wages of them all. Murther can but hang a man; and (without favour) Petty Larceny will hang a man too. The greatest sins can but damn a man; and (without Gods mercy) the smallest will damn a man too.’ But what? will some reply: In case two sins be propounded, may I not do the lesser, to avoid the greater; otherwise must I not of necessity do the greater? The answer is short and easie: If two sins be propounded, do neither. E malis mini­mum, holdeth as you heard (and yet not always neither) in evils of pain: But that is no Rule for evils of sin. Here the safer Rule is, E malis nullum. And the reason is sound, from the Principle we have in hand. If we may not do any evil, to procure a positive good; certainly Eâdem do­ctrinâ quâ hor­remus facere mala ut eveni­ant bona, hor­rere debemus facere mala ut evitemus pejo­ra. Evitare e­nim pejora, mul [...] ò minus bonum est, quàm evenire bonum. Caje­tan. hic. much less may we do one evil, to avoid or prevent another.

But what if both cannot be avoided, but that one must needs be done?26. In such a strait may I not choose the lesser? To thee, I say again as be­fore, Choose neither. To the Case, I answer, It is no Case: because, as it is put, it is a case impossible. For, Nemo angustiatur ad peccandum: the Case cannot be supposed, wherein a man should be straitned, as he could not come off fairly without sinning. A man by rashness, or fear, or frail­ty, may foully entangle himself; and through the powerful engage­ments of sin drive himself into very narrow straits, or be so driven by the fault or injury of others: yet there cannot be any such straits, as should enforce a necessity of sinning; but that still there is one path or other out of them without sin. ‘The perplexity that seemeth to be in the things, is rather in the Non enim da­tur perplexio ex parte rer um: sea contingere potest ex parte hom inis nesci­ent is evadere, nec videntis a­ditum evaden­di absque ali­quo peccato. Cajet hic. See the Gloss on dist. 13. item adversus, where he pro­veth against Gratian that there can be noperplexity. men who puzzle and lose themselves in the Labyrinths of sin, because they care not to heed the clue that would lead them out, if it were followed.’ Say, a wicked man through heat of blood make a wicked vow to kill his brother: here he hath by his own rashness brought himself into a seeming strait, that either he must commit a murther or break a vow; either of which seemeth to be a great sin, the one aga, inst the fifth, the other against the third Commandment. But here is in very deed no strait or perplexity at all: Here is a fair open course for him with­out sin. He may break his vow, and there's an end. ‘Neither is this the choice of the lesser sin; but only the Non docet e­ligere minus peccatum, sed solutionem mi­noris nexùs. Cajetanus hic, speaking of the Council of Toledo. See c. 29 q. 4 per to [...]. loosening of the lesser bond: the bond of charity being greater than the bond of a promise; and there be­ing good reason that (in terms of inconsistency, when both cannot stand) the lesser bond should yield to the greater. But is it not a sin for a man to break a vow? Yes, where it may be helpt salvis charitate & justitia, there the breach is a sin: but in the case proposed, it is no sin. As Christ sai [...]h in the point of swearing, so it may be said in the point of breach of vow Matth. 5. 37. [...]. Never was any breach of vow, but it was peccatum, [Page 33] or ex peocato: the breaking is either it self for [...]ally a sin; or it argueth at least a former sin, in the making.’ ‘So as the sin, in the case alledged, was before, in making such an unlawful vow; and for that sin the party must repent; but the breaking of it now it is made, is no new sin; (Ra­ther it is a necessary duty; and a branch of that repentance which is due for the former rashness in making it) because an hurtful vow is, (and that virtute praecepti) rather to be broken than kept.’ The Exod. 1. 16, &c. Aegyptian Midwives, not by their own fault, but by Pharaoh's tyrannous command, are driven into a narrow strait, enforcing a seeming necessity of sin: for either they must destroy the Hebrew Children, and so sin by Murther; or else they must devise some handsome shift to carry it clean from the King's knowledge, and so sin by lying. And so they did; they chose rather to lye than to kill, as indeed in the compatison it is by much the lesser sin. But the very truth is, they should have done neither: they should flatly have refused the King's Commandment, though with hazard of their lives; and have resolved rather to suffer any evil, than to do any. ‘And so See August. contra mendac. cap. 19. Lot should have done: he should rather have adventured his own life, and theirs too, in protecting the chastity of his Daughters, and the safety of his Guests; than have Gen. 19. 8. Perturbatio animi fuit, non consilium. Hist. Scholast. in Gen. cap. 52 offered the exposal of his Daughters to the Iusts of the beastly Sodomites; though it were to redeem his guests from the abuse of [...]ouler and more abominable filthiness.’ Absolutely, there can­not be a Case imagined, wherein it should be impossible to avoid one sin, unless by the committing of another. The Case which of all other cometh nearest to a Perplexity, is that of an erroneous Conscience. ‘Be­cause of a double bond; the bond of God's Law, which to Sin is the transgression of the Law, 1 John 3. 4. trans­gress is a sin: and the bond of particular Conscience, which also to Whatsoe­ver is not of faith is sin, Rom. 14. 28. Omne quod fit contra conscien­tiam aedi [...]icat ad gehennam. c. 28. q. 1 Om­nes sec. Ex his. transgress is a sin. Whereupon there seemeth to follow, an inevitable necessity of sinning; when God's Law requireth one thing, and parti­cular conscience dictateth the flat contrary: for in such a case, a man must either obey God's Law, and so sin against his own conscience; or obey his own conscience, and so sin against God's Law. But neither in this case is there any perplexity at all in the things themselves: that which there is, is through the default of the man only, whose judgment being erroneous mis-leadeth his conscience, and so casteth him upon a necessity of sin­ning. But yet the necessity is no simple and absolute, and unavoidable, and perpetual necessity: for it is only a necessity, ex hypothesi, and for a time, and continueth but stante tali errore.’ And still there is a way out betwixt those sins, and that without a third: and that way is deponere erro­neam conscientiam. He must rectifie his judgment, and reform the error of his Conscience, and then all is well. There is no perplexity, no necessity, no obligation, no expediency, which should either enforce, or perswade us to any sin. The resolution is damnable, Let us do evil that good may come.

I must take leave, before I pass from this point, to make two Instances: 28. and to measure out from the Rule of my Text an answer to them both. They are such, as I would desire you of this place to take due and special consideration of. I desire to deal plainly, and I hope it shall be (by God's blessing upon it) effectually for your good, and the Churches peace. One instance shall be in a sin of Commission, and the other in a sin of Omis­sion.

The sin of Commission, wherein I would instance, is indeed a sin beyond 29. Commission: it is the usurping of the Magistrates Office without a Com­mission. The Question is, Whether the zealous intention of a good end [Page 34] may not warrant it good, or at least excuse it from being evil, and a sin? I need not frame a Case for the illustration of this instance: the inconside­rate forwardness of some hath made it to my hand. You may read it in the disfigured windows and walls of this Church: Pictures, and Statua's, and Images; and for their sakes the windows and walls wherein they stood, have been heretofore, and of late pulled down, and broken in pieces and defaced, without the Command, or so much as leave, of those who have power to reform things amiss in that kind. Charity bindeth us to think the best of those that have done it: that is, they did it out of a forward (though misgoverned) zeal; intending therein Gods glory, in the farther sup­pression of Idolatry, by taking away these (as they supposed) likely occa­sions of it. Now in such a case as this, the question is, Whether the intention of such an end can justifie such a deed? And the fact of Numb. 25. 7, 8. Phineas, Numb. 25. (who for a much like end, for the staying of the people from Idolatry, executed vengeance upon Zimri and Cosbi, being but a private man, and no Magistrate;) seemeth to make for it.

But my Text ruleth it otherwise. If it be evil, it is not to be done, no29. not for the preventing of Idolatry. I pass by some considerations other­wise of good moment: as namely, first, whether Statua's and Pictures may1. not be permitted in Christian Churches, for the adorning of God's House, and for civil and historical uses, not only lawfully and decently, but even profitably? ‘I must confess, I never heard substantial reason given, why they might not; at the least, so long as there is no apparent danger of superstition. And, secondly, whether things either in their first erection, 2. or by succeeding abuse superstitious, may not be profitably continued, if the Superstition be abolished? Otherwise, not Pictures only, and Cros­ses, and Images; but most of our Hospitals, and Schools, and Colleges, and Churches too must down: and so the hatred of Idolatry should but usher in licentious Sacrilege, contrary to that passage of our Apostle in the next Chapter before this, Rom. 2. 22. Thou that abhorrest Idols, committest thou Sacrilege? And, thirdly, whether these forward ones have not bewrayed somewhat their own self-guiltiness in this act, at least for the manner of it, in doing it secretly and in the dark? A man should not dare to do that, which he would not willingly either be seen, when it is doing; or own being done.’ To pass by these; consider no more but this one thing only, into what dangerous and unsufferable absurdities a man might run, if he should but follow these mens grounds. Erranti nullus terminus: Er­ror knoweth no stay; and a false Principle once received, multiplieth into a [...]. thousand absurd conclusions. It is good for men to go upon sure grounds, else they may run and wander in insinitum. A little error at the first, if there be way given to it, will increase beyond belief. ‘As a small spark may fire a large City, and a 2 Kings 18. 44, 45. cloud no bigger than a mans hand, in short space overspread the face of the whole Heavens.’ For grant, for the suppression of Idolatry, in case the Magistrate will not do his office, that it is lawful for a private man to take upon him to reform what he thinketh amiss, and to do the part and office of a Magistrate (which must needs have been their ground, if they had any, for this action;) there can be no sufficient cause given, why, by the same reason, and upon the same grounds, a private man may not take upon him to establish Laws, raise Powers, ad­minister Iustice, execute Malefactors, or do any other thing the Magistrate should do; in case the Magistrate slack to do his duty in any of the pre­mises. Which if it were once granted, (as granted it must be, if these mens fact be justifiable) every wise man seeth, the end could be [Page 35] no other but vast Anarchy and confusion both in Church and Commonwealth: whereupon must unavoidably follow the speedy subversion both of Religi­on and State. If things be amiss, and the Magistrate help it not; private men may lament it, and, as occasion serveth, and their condition and calling permitteth, soberly and discreetly put the Magistrate in mind of it: But they not make themselves Magistrates to reform it.

And as to the act of Phinehas: though I rather think he did; yet what30. if he did not well in so doing? It is a thing we are not certain of: and we1. must have certainer grounds for what we do, than uncertain examples. Secondly, what if Phinehas had the Magistrates Authority to enable him2. to that attempt? It is not altogether improbable (to my apprehension) from the fifth Verse of the Chapter, where the story is laid down, Numb. 25. 5. especially parallell'd with another story of much like circumstances, Exod. 32. 27. that as there the Levites, so here Phinehas drew the Sword in exe­cution of the express command of Moses the supreme Magistrate. If nei­ther thus, nor so: yet Thirdly, (which cutteth off all plea, and is the most3. common answer ordinarily given by Divines to this and the like instances drawn from some singular actions of God's worthies;) Men of Heroical spirits and gifts, such as were David, Sampson, Ehud, Moses, Elias, and some others, especially at such times as they were employed in some speci­al service for the good of God's Church, were exempt from the common rules of life: and did many things (as we are to presume) not without the Nec Sam­son aliter excu­satur, quod seip­sum cum hosti­bus ruinâ do­mùs oppressit, ni­si quod latenter spiritus hoc jus­serat, qui per il­lum miracula faciebat. Aug. lib. 1. de Civ. Dei. cap. 21. Si defenditur non fuisse peccatum, privatum habu­isse concilium indubitanter credendus est. Bern. de prec. & dispensat. secret motion and direction of God's holy and powerful Spirit, which were therefore good in them (that secret direction being to them loco specialis mandati, like that to Gen. 22. 2. Abraham for sacrificing his Son) but not safe or lawful for us to imitate. Opera liberi spiritus, Chytr. in Gen. 1. and in Exod. 32. say Divines, non sunt exigenda ad regulas communes nec trahenda in exemplum vitae. The extraordinary Heroical Acts of God's Worthies are not to be measured by the common rules of life, nor to become exemplary unto others. Of which nature was 1 Sam. 17. David's single combat with Goliah: and Judg. 10. 30. Sampson's pulling down the house upon himself and the Philistines; ‘And Exod. 2. 12. Mo­ses slaying the Egyptian; and Judg. 3. 5, &c. Ehud's stabbing of King Eglon; and 2 Kings 1. 10, 12. Eliah's calling down for fire from Heaven upon the Captains and their fifties, and divers others recorded in the Scripture.’ Of which last fact we have our blessed Saviour's judgment in Luk. 9. that it was done by the ex­traordinary and peculiar instinct of God's spirit, but it is not to be imita­ted by others, without Imitando ab a­liis exprimi nec possunt, nec de­bent, nisi eadem [...]. Spiritus exci­tentur. Chytr. in Exod. 2. particular certain assurance of the like instinct. Where when the Disciples would have called down for fire from Heaven upon the Samaritans, and alledged Elias for their precedent; Luke 9. 52. Lord, wilt thou that we command fire to come down from Heaven and consume them, as Elias did? His answer was with a kind of indignation (as both his [...]. ge­sture and speeches shew) Nescitis cujus spiritus estis; You know not what man­ner of spirits you are of. Elias was endued with an extraordinary spirit, in the freedom whereof he did what he then did: but it is not for you or others to propose his example, unless you can demonstrate his spirit. And if Phi­nehas's Act also was (as most De Phinees, autem dicen­dum est, quod ex inspiratione di­vina, zelo Dei commotus, hoc fecit. Aqui. 2▪ 2. qu. 6 [...]. art. 6. ad 2. & Theologi pas­sim. think it was) such as these: it can no more justifie the usurpation of Magistracy; ‘than David's act can bloody Duels, or Sampson's self-murther, or Moses's secret slaughter, or Ehud's King-killing, or Eliah's private revenge.’ I have stood the longer up­on the discovery of this sin, that men might take right judgment of it; and not think it either warrantable or excuseable by any pretension of zeal, or of whatsoever other good: and that both such as have gone too far this way in their practice already for the time past, may acknowledge [Page 36] their own oversight, and be sorry for it; and others seeing their error may for the time to come forbear such outrages, and keep themselves within the due bounds of Christian sobriety, and their particular Callings. And thus much of the former instance, in a matter of Commission. I am to give you another in a matter of Omission.