A Continuation of morning-exercise questions and cases of conscience practically resolvedA Continuation of morning-exercise questions and cases of conscience practicaly resolved

And then for such as decline the public Worship totally, as judging it simply unlawful: Is it not possible they may be led to that Practice by somewhat else than humour and factious inclination? Have they not that to say, which may at least seem solid and strong to a conscientious man? How jealous God did heretofore show himself in all the affairs of his Worship! How particular in the appointment even of the smallest things he would have appertain to it! How unsuitable multiplied Ceremonies are to the mature State of the Church! And how sensibly burdensome, they were to the Disciples of the first Age as a yoke not to be born. And that therefore God himself when the season of maturity, and the fullness of time came, thought fit to abrogate those of his own former appointment, with no (probable) design to allow men the liberty of substituting others in their room. Why is it not to be thought that the fear of the great God withholds them from doing what they judge would offend him? And that, if they err, it is for fear of erring? Why can nothing be thought on whereto to impute their practice, but peevish humour?

And then for such as decline the public Worship totally, as judging it simply unlawful: Is it not possible they may be led to that Practice by somewhat else than humour and factious inclination? Have they not that to say, which may at least seem solid and strong to a conscientious man? How jealous God did heretofore shew himself in all the affairs of his Worship! How particular in the appointment even of the smallest things he would have appertain to it! How unsuitable multiply'd Ceremonies are to the mature State of the Church! And how sensibly burdensome, they were to the Disciples of the first Age as a yoke not to be born. And that therefore God himself when the season of maturity, and the fulnes of time came, thought fit to abrogate those of his own former appointment, with no (probable) design to allow men the liberty of substituting others in their room. Why is it not to be thought that the fear of the great God withholds them from doing what they judge would offend him? And that, if they erre, it is for fear of erring? Why can nothing be thought on whereto to impute their practice, but peevish humour?

Especially if that be considered (which is common to these two last mentioned sorts of men) that they sensibly find other means more edifying to them, or expect them only to be so, if the other be thought unlawful. If they be thought merely lawful, and such as may therefore be used upon weighty reasons at some times, but are found less edifying, who can doubt but I ought to use for my Soul (at least in an ordinary course) the aptest means that I can ordinarily have for the promoting its edification and salvation? Do we not reckon our selves to owe so much even to our bodies? And what is another mans opinion to signify against my sense and constant experience? Is there not such a thing as a mental idiosyncrasy (or peculiarity of temper) as well as a bodily? and whereto what is most agreeable, any man that is not destitute of ordinary understanding is the fittest judge himself. As every one, that is not a mere fool, is so much a Physician as to know what diet suits him best.