SOME CONSIDERATION

OF A

PREFACE TO AN INQUIRY CONCERNING THE

OCCASIONAL CONFORMITY OF DISSENTERS, &c.

or disquiet him with it. Let him alone with his judg ment and practice together; but receive him. And the forementioned rigour, we find to have been corrected in after-time.

tion in foro ecclesiæ, or in a visible church of Christ. And | with him, or pass you no judgment upon it, so as to vex so, there are sins consistent with the Christian state. And here are sins inconsistent with it; or destructive of it. Duties that are matter of simple přecept, and duties that are also conditions of Christian communion. We are also to distinguish the obligation of negative and affirmative precepts, as 'tis usual and common, viz. that the former bind (unless the precept were repealed) semper, et ad semper, always, and to every point of time. The latter, always, while the precept stands in force, but not to every point of time. Of this we shall make the proper use, in the fit place.

2. Of the different notions under which, or causes for which, men of different sentiments or persuasions may decline the communion of this or that church: viz. Some may decline the communion of this or that church, as judging it essentially defective; so as not to have in it the essentials of a Christian church. (Whether that judgment be right or wrong, true or false, is not now the question; or under our present consideration.) Others may decline it, as judging it defective in respect of some accidentals, or circumstances; either simply considered, or compared with some other Christian church, that they may apprehend to come nearer the Christian rule; and wherein the administration of Christ's ordinances may be more profitable, and tend more to their advantage and benefit, in their spiritual concernments.

These distinctions we shall consider severally, both by way of explication and application to the present case.

1. For the former, when we speak of sins consistent or inconsistent with the Christian state; of duties that are merely such; or that also are required as necessary to Christian communion; we intend the distinction as referring to visible Christianity. And mean, that as there are sins inconsistent with visible Christianity: avowed atheism, open idolatry, infidelity, apostacy, total, or in respect of some or other known fundamental or Christian religion; contumacious and continuing rebellion against the authority and known laws of Christ; which, without visibly serious repentance and reformation, slur and deface a man's character, as a visible Christian: so there may be faults that do it not; which may yet come under common notice, or view. I only instance in what is more agreeable to our present case, as misjudging in some circumstantial matters, and very disputable, that are extra-essential to the substance of Christianity; and practising according to that erring and mistaken judgment; even though the mistake be continued, never discerned, and never repented of or reformed as long as one lives.

And the like charges are elsewhere given in reference to the differences between the Jewish and the Gentile Christians, the circumcised and the uncircumcised; i. e that in the Christian state, no distinction was to be made of Jews or Greeks, circumcision or uncircumcision, them that used or disused the Jewish rites and ceremonies; but all were to be esteemed as one in Christ Jesus, or Christ to be all in all among them, Gal. iii. 28. Col. iii. 11. i. e. God makes no difference, supposing they be good men, sincere Christians, or become new creatures; he stands neither upon their being circumcised, or uncircumcised, Gal. vi. 15. Retaining or quitting the subsequent judaical observances; so tenderly, and by so gentle a hand, did the Divine wisdom and goodness draw off the judaizing Christians from those things, whereof he designed the total abolition; whereof they had more pretence to be tenacious, being things enjoined by God himself. Therefore God treats them with more indulgence. And what example should we rather choose to follow ? especially, what indulgence doth the case itself challenge, in not pressing, under penalty, what there can be no pretence of divine authority for? And we find this is the measure according to which we are to go, in receiving persons into our communion. We are to receive such as we have reason to think God receives; in the forecited, Rom. xiv. 3. Do not judge, but receive him, for God hath received him.

There are therefore two plain rules, laid down by that great apostle, in reference to such dubious and small matters; viz. one concerning such scrupulous persons themselves, that they be fully persuaded in their own minds, (ver. 5.) and do nothing against the judgment of their own consciences, in those matters; which he enforces, verse 23. The other concerning the carriage of fellow Christians towards them, that they judge them not, but receive them, verse 1, 2, 3-10. Whereupon Mr. Prefacer, I conceive myself clear in not judging. And you will be clear in judging, if not only you are an abler judge, (which I will never dispute with you,) but also, that you were called to judge; and that your judgment is most assuredly true. If God have authorized you, and revealed to you, not only what was right or wrong, in the case itself, but the secrets of his heart, whom you judge; and that he prac tised what he thought to be wrong: i. e. that he is a hypocrite, and that he hath, against his conscience, yielded to do that for (an unprofitable) preferment, probably to his great loss, (as some have found it,) which he himself thought unlawful; if you know him to be of so vain and light a mind, that not for any real advantage, but for a little temporary, evanid honour and gayety, he hath offered this violence to the judgment of his own conscience; if God revealed this to you, and charged you to proclaim it to the world; then hath he indeed set you over him, and far above him; placed you in a much higher seat of judicature, than that wherein he is seated; dignified you with an authority superior to what he ever conferred upon any apostle, or on the whole Christian church, or on any, besides his own Son.

Such were the differences in judgment and practice about meats and days, Rom. xiv. 2, &c. wherein there could not but be right and wrong. Both sides could not be in the right, i. e. referring their practice to their judgment. The question being, whether such and such things were lawful or unlawful, and that the one side judged them lawful, the other, unlawful. The one side must be in the wrong. The things about which they differed, could not be both lawful and unlawful. It must be sin to judge and do amiss; duty, to judge aright, and practice accordingly. And what was now to be done in this case? Were they to excommunicate, and curse, and damn one another? Some that presided in the Christian church did, 'tis true, But if there be nothing of all this; then, though your in process of time, come to use an unchristian severity in judgment should happen to be true, yet if it were without such cases. As when some tied themselves to the eating any ground, upon which you could know it to be true; of herbs only, and abstained from flesh (whether they de- and so it were only right by chance: if it were without rived their opinion from the school of Pythagoras, or how-call; if you had nothing to do with the matter; if it come ever they came by it, matters not.) And it was determined among the exempted cases reserved by the great God to concerning them, (I could show where and when were it his own tribunal, and which he hath subjected to no needful,) that if they would use abstinence, upon other ecclesiastical nor human cognizance; being, as to the considerations, they might; but if upon a judgment, or matter itself, very minute, not so much as a doubtful acopinion, that the eating of flesh was unlawful, they should tion; but the circumstance of an action, and that touches be excommunicated. And this was thought a sufficient not any vital of religion; as to the lawfulness of that eirreason for that hard censure, because they denied Christ cumstance, disputable; a ceremony; one of them, that were to have given that liberty, as to meats, which he had really not less disputed, by men of excellent wisdom, and piety given. But was this according to the mind of God? No, on both sides, than the Jewish ones, in the time when they quite contrary; we see it otherwise determined by apos- were matter of controversy to the Christian church: and Colical authority, Him that is weak in the faith, receive after all that disputation, determinable, for aught I know, ye, but not to doubtful disputations, Rom. xiv. 1. The case chiefly, by the majus or minus bonum ecclesia; as in the follows. The charge is, Receive them, take them into time when that Jewish rite of circumcision was the occayour communion, and dispute not his doubting judgment | sion of so much disquiet to the primitive Christians, St

And if hereupon it should be said, But since, Sir, you think it not unlawful to communicate with such a church sometimes, why should you not, for common order's sake, do it always?

Paul circumcised Timothy, for the greater service of the | ing he err, may impose upon the judgment, and thereby Christian interest; and being, as to the inward intention, direct the practice of a very intelligent, discerning, and motive, and inducement, secret, and liable only to the upright-hearted man: so as to make him think that which Divine view; then, I say, upon all this, even supposing is perhaps an error, his present duty; and so not offer viothe thing you censure were faulty, yet it is no such fault lence to his conscience, in what he so doth. As, judging as can slur the character of a man, otherwise appearing a such a church true, as to essentials, he may think (occaserious Christian. If the contrary were duty, 'tis no such sion inviting) he hath greater reason, though it be defecduty as is necessary to entitle a man to any Christian com- tive in accidents, to communicate with it sometimes, than munion. Yea, and I add, your censuring it, as you do, is to shun its communion always; since those Christians a thousand-fold (even unconceivably) more faulty. And that agree in all the essentials of Christianity, agree in if you could truly say, as Diogenes did, trampling upon far greater things than it is possible for them to disagree Plato's rich bed, calco Platonis fastum, I tread upon Plato's in. He must have mean and misshapen thoughts of pride, it might more justly be replied, as the latter did Christian religion, that thinks not the great doctrines of reply, sed majori fastu, but you do it with greater pride. faith, ordinances of worship, and rules of daily practice You take upon you to invade the throne of the Most High; (common to us all) unspeakably more valuable, than this and may take that as said to you, Who art thou that judg-or that external mode, or form, of religion, that is but acest another's servant? Why dost thou judge thy brother? cidentally, and mutably, adherent thereto. And what if We must all stand before the judgment-seat of Christ, some have thought that alone a sufficient reason for their Rom. xiv. 4-10. And I wonder you did not dread those occasional communion with a church, with which they awful words, of that very Judge, Matt. vii. 1. Judge not have not constant communion, that they may do it and that ye be not judged. And shall more wonder, if yet themselves that right before the world, as to testify, they you perceive not, when you thought a mote was in ano- decline it not as no church; but so far practically, own it, ther's eye, that there was a beam in your own, as verse 3. as the reason of the thing requires: why may they not be A thing that among heathens has been animadverted on supposed to do this, as thinking it a good reason, whether with just severity. Nor shall I recharge you in the fol- it be really so or no, without going against conscience lowing words, Thou hypocrite, (for I know not your heart herein? And yet the same person may, perhaps, think the in this matter,) but I would have you re-consider, with communion of another church preferable, and, for ordihow little warrant you have broadly charged that worthy nary resort, rather to be chosen, as wherein he finds the person your quarrel is about, with hypocrisy; that he acted same essence, with more regular, grateful, and advantaagainst his own conscience, because he acted not accord-geous modes and ways of administration. ing to yours: as if yours were to be the standard, and the conscience-general to mankind! But that you may apprehend it not impossible for a man to follow the dictate of conscience, and perhaps as good a one as yours, though he do not follow yours; I shall yet have recourse to a second distinction, before laid down, viz. between the different notions under which, or causes for which, men of different sentiments may decline the communion of this, or that church, viz. some, as thinking it essentially defective--others, as judging it defective in some circumstances only-Now, Sir, if any man decline the communion of what is (however) vulgarly called a church, as counting it really no church at all, his withdrawing or abstaining from its communion, must be total and constant, he can have no communion' with it as a Christian church at all. But if one avoid more ordinary communication with a church, as judging it, though not essentially defective, yet to want or err in some circumstances so considerable, as that he counts another church comes nearer the common Christian rule, the Holy Scriptures; and finds its administrations more conducing to his spiritual advantage; he may be led, by the judgment of his conscience; both, sometimes, upon weighty and important reasons, to communicate with the former, and continue therein, according as those reasons shall continue urgent upon him; and yet, sometimes, as the cessant or diminished weight of such reasons shall allow, to communicate with the other. They that will not admit of this distinction, thus generally proposed, as a ground of such different practice in the general, as is here expressed; but judge not only essential perfection, but a perfection by the concurrence of all desirable accidents, to be necessary also unto Christian communion, can have no communion with any Christian church on earth; for where is any to be found every way perfect? 'Tis true, that accidental defects may be more or less, and it requires great accuracy to apply what is Some may here, perhaps, say, "What one judges best, here generally said to particular cases; nor shall that be ought to be chosen always." And indeed nothing is more poy present business; I have somewhat else of greater im- easy, or ordinary, than for them that have little compass portance to do. All that I concern myself for, is only to of thought, to pronounce hastily, and conclude peremptave it considered, that a man of conscience may, upon torily, even beyond seven men that can render a reason. hath been said, while he keeps himself within the limits right negative to his confident assertion! and say, What hat grounds generally mentioned, vary his communion as How would such a one stare, if one should oppose a downof a Christian church, essentially true, and that hath no is best, in matter of practice, is not to be chosen and done additions destructive of that essence. And if he mistake always? 'Tis not enough to justify such a choice, and

at all. I to be a man of a profligate conscience, or of none
at all. He may have arguments so specious, that, suppos

e Cum tua pervideas oculis mala lippus inunctis,
Cur in amicorum vitiis tam cernis acutum.

May he not reply, Pardon me in that, good Sir, if I think I owe more to what I take for Christ's rule, and to the discernible advantage of my own soul; judging, in these respects, that communion to be best, which I more constantly adhere to. I say, why may not an honest wellmeaning man reason thus; and do accordingly, (whether his sentiments herein be right or wrong,) without gainsaying his own conscience? And the rather, for that the church itself, with which he more ordinarily communicates not, (as comprehended in the states of the realm,) so far gives him the liberty of his choice, as to reckon his doing herein what is more for his satisfaction, and advantage, no punishable thing. Why may he not conscientiously say, Let me be excused, if I do not compliment away things that are, to me, of so great importance; and which they to whom I give it, cannot but count a profane sort of compliment?

Question. But should not the latitude of a Christian

carry him to fix his communion with the larger and more extensive church?

Answer. What! Should the latitude of a Christian bind him to one sort of Christians, with exclusion of all other? Never was that noble principle of true Christian latitude more perverted, or turned even against itself, than if it be used to train men into a religious bigotry! As if the apostle's professing to be all things to all men, to the Jews as a Jew, &c. must signify, that he take one side, and engage with the Jews, against the Gentiles! They that refuse confinement to the largest church may avoid it, not because they should, otherwise, express too much latitude, but too little.

best, in present circumstances, and all things considered, that ought to be considered, in the present juncture.

Quam aquila, aut serpens Epidaurius ?-Hor. (And many others of them abound with like passages.)

Let here another distinction be remembered, before laid | stranger than Nadab's and Abihu's, as common unconsedown. Negative precepts oblige to every point of time. crated fire differs from infernal. Affirmative do not so. He that is always under obligation to pray solemnly, is not obliged to be always solemnly at prayer. The worship of God is better than most actions of our lives; yet the saving of a town or house from fire, yea, the plucking of a sheep or an ox out of a ditch, is sometimes to be preferred. The most sacred external act of duty becomes a sin, when it excludes that which is more a duty at that time. How fatal, how totally destructive an error might it have proved, before, to the Jewish nation, always to have thought it unlawful to defend themselves on the sabbath-day! a How long was sacramental obsignation in the wilderness omitted? How much more may attending upon such an institution, in, what some may think, a more eligible manner; if there be a reason that outweighs; when, not the substance of the ordinance is wanting, but what is counted (perhaps by you) a fitter modus !

You will say, These human forms, and other devices they are so much set upon, are sins. Sins! but I ask, Do they unchristian a man? They will be much more overmagnified, by so fervent opposition, than by serious use. But what would I do in such a case ? would I not reject a man from the Lord's table, how serious soever, that would not communicate otherwise than kneeling? No, God forbid! Let him use his own freedom, and be fully persuaded in his own mind; he shall not offend me. And though there was a time when Christians were forbidden kneeling at all on the Lord's day; I had rather that human institution were neglected, than any good man debarred of so useful an ordinance. I should never quarrel with any man for that gesture itself. But I should like no one's choice of it the better, that should pretend to choose it for a moral reason. For instance, as expressive of greater reverence; because a moral reason must immediately bind To be plain with you, Mr. Prefacer, suppose you judge conscience; and is of universal extent, must equally conkneeling at the Lord's table a sin, (as cautious as you cern all; whence, this would imply an accusation of all are, not to seem to take this, or that side, in these contro- other Christian churches that use not this gesture, as irversies, wherein you, however, unwarily betrayed your- reverent, or less reverent than they ought to be. Nor can self, as hath been noted; yet my supposing it doth you no there be any other measure of debitum, or of that which hurt,) and suppose you judge another gesture a duty; sup- ought to be, but some law or other; nor can there be any pose you judge concurrence in the use of the liturgy a sin, law of universal obligation, but by a universal law-giver. and the unprescribed way (by human authority) a duty; This would therefore insinuate an accusation of our Lord yet who hath empowered you to make such sins (if they himself of neglect, in not making such a law, and in alwere such) exclusive from Christian communion? or such lowing a different gesture to his disciples, when he first duties, conditions of it? Sometime, surely, it will be un-appointed that ordinance. For though their gesture was derstood how bold an adventure it is, to make terms of not sitting, it is more probable to have been such, as was Christian communion, which Christ hath never made. used in those times and countries for their ordinary table There are sins and duties, immediately by God's law itself, gesture. And this other I should use, being in commuthat he never intended to be so characteristical, viz. of the nion with those that use it, rather not to offend them, than unfit or fit subjects of Christian communion. For what! please the master of the house, or to satisfy my own conhath God forbidden any to be admitted to Christian com- science, as if it were in itself a sin not to use it. But for munion, but such as are perfect in knowledge and holi- them that use it on that account, i. e. of conscience towards ness? How bold a self-assuming then is it in you, not only God; I should, according to the mentioned rule, not judge, to make sins and duties which God hath never made so; but receive them. but also to make them distinguishing terms of Christian communion! which is far higher, and the more insolent usurpation! You know, or it is meet for you so to judge, that many pious men dare not partake of the Lord's supper, otherwise than kneeling. And I have been sufficiently assured concerning divers of eminent sanctity, that they have been as greatly affected, and had as high elevations of soul, in the use of the common prayer, as others in any other way of devotion.

Now, Mr. Prefacer, ought another man's gust to have been the measure of theirs? would you have these men excluded from all Christian worship, viz. in society with Christian worshippers? To say, Let them worship God with those of their own way, is to say you know not what. For if (as by your rule it seems to be determined) the things are unlawful and exclusive from all Christian communion in worship, there ought to be none of any such way, that they can worship with. And now, Sir, if that be your conscience, that supposing there be never so many thousands in a Christian nation that cannot worship God in your way, you would have them paganized, made as heathens and publicans, God bless me from your conscience! And shall this be your way of recommending yourself to Christian communion? Wheresoever such a spirit appears of zeal against such and such external forms; (or if it be for them, 'tis all one to me ;) of pride and selfesteem, for so contemptibly little things; of malice and cruelty, that they could persecute even to the death, if it were in their power, or into strange countries, such as differ from them in things of no greater moment: I would sooner be of a fellowship with drunkards, or other sensualists, (though I hope God will keep me from both,) than with them; as much, as I count a devil somewhat a worse thing than a brute. Nor can it be said, that herein Satan is transformed into an angel of light; his transformation is, at least, in this, very inartificial. He apparently enough shows himself to belong to the darkest region. And whereas some such may talk of offering strange fire, because it comes not from their altar; their fire is as much

d As it was once said to have been, Plutarch de Superst.

And whereas some may think it would introduce confusion into the church, that all should not be confined to one gesture in such an act of worship, it would be a worse confusion to have serious Christians, because their conscience obliges them to kneel, when others do not, mingled with Turks and infidels. Nor is that oneness of gesture more necessary to any order that is itself necessary, than that all that partake together in such an ordinance, be of one stature, size, or sex; or wear all garments of the same shape or colour. I hope for a time, when Christianity will be the religion of the world. While it is cramped it will never grow. I hope it not to prevail in the world, by having all the world, in every minute thing, reduced to the model of this or that party. How absurdly arrogant would he be, that should pray that all the world might be of one mind, by being all brought to be, in every nice punctilio, of his mind. When I see partition-walls taken down, truly catholic Christianity coming into repute, a readiness and promptness of mind, to be all things to all men in the apostle's true meaning; when the great things of religion do more engage men's minds, and they cease to magnify trifles; when as to faults, (real or supposed,) men no longer strain at gnats and swallow camels; when the love of God comes to govern the Christian church, and reign in the hearts of men; then will the kingdom of God come with power. For I am sure the spirit of love is the spirit of power, and of a sound mind. In the meantime, I declare myself (as I have often) to be of no party, self-distinguished by so little things. Nor, when the visible church of Christ on earth comes to be confessedly composed (as of old) only of three sorts, catechumens, penitents, and the fideles, with their infants, can it be any great or insuperable difficulty, whom we are to receive into our communions, and whom we are to exclude.

And thus, Mr. Prefacer, I have said all I intend, as to the main of your cause, i. e. Whether they that shall not be of your mind, when such a case occurs to them, as that about which you litigate, and shall practise otherwise, (i. e. shall not please you,) should therefore, except they repent