courses, nor yet so much: because, in these, an error is an evil principle, and apt to be of mischievous effect and dissemination; whereas an error in practice, because it is singular and circumstantiate, is also personal and limited. But the doctors may lawfully teach an opinion less probable, if they be moved to it by the authority of some more eminent person.

3. It is confessed to be lawful to follow the opinion that is more probable; but that it is lawful to leave the more probable and to follow the less, say they, is the more common and received opinion, and therefore also more probable; and therefore this opinion may be chosen and pursued; and then, because we may follow that opinion which is more probable, we may follow that which is less, because it is more probable that we may.

These objections I answer:

1. That the danger of sinning is not the only reason, why we may not follow the less probable opinion; for it is not always lawful to expose ourselves to a danger of sinning; for sometimes it is necessary that we endure a noble trial, and resist openly, and oppose an enemy, which cannot be done without danger, but is often without sin; but to leave the more probable for the less is not only a danger of sinning, but a sin directly, and beyond a danger; and if it were not more than a mere danger, it could not be a sin. For besides that this hath danger, it is a most unreasonable, and a most unnatural thing, against the designs of God, and the proper effects of reason. But besides, this way of arguing is neither good in logic nor in conscience. He that can answer one of my arguments, does not presently overthrow my proposition; and it is not safe to venture upon an action, because the con trary relies upon one weak leg. But then as to the instance in this argument, I answer, he that follows the more probable, though it be less safe, does not expose himself to any danger at all of sinning, because though he does not follow his greatest fears, yet he follows his greatest reason, and in that he is sometimes safest though he perceives it not: however, there is in this case no danger that is imputable to the man, that follows the best reason he hath. But this excuses not him, who follows that which seems to him to have in it less reason; for unless it be by some other

intervening accident, which may alter the case (of which I shall afterwards give account), the less probable opinion hath in it a direct danger, and therefore to choose it, is ordinarily against charity, and, in some degree, against conscience itself.

2. To the second I answer, that both doctors and the people, though they may safely follow the less probable opinion, yet they may never directly follow a less probable conscience: that is, though a probable opinion is a sufficient guide of conscience, and it is sufficient both for publication and for practice that it is so; and, therefore, that we are not strictly tied to make a curious search into the two probables, which excels others in the degrees of reason, lest there should arise eternal scruples, perpetual restlessness and dissatisfaction in the minds of men; yet when of two probables there is an actual persuasion that this is more, and that is less, neither may the doctors teach, nor any man follow the less, because here it is not the better opinion, but the better conscience that is despised. It may happen that what I believe more probable, is indeed less; and therefore it must be admitted to be safe to follow the less probable opinion, if it happen to stand on the fairest side of conscience, that is, that it be better thought of than it deserves; but for the same reason it is also certain, that we must follow that which we think the more probable opinion, whether it be so or no, because this is to be done, not for the opinion, but for conscience sake. And whereas it is said in the objection, that a doctor may lawfully teach an opinion less probable, if he be moved to it by the authority of some more eminent person,' that is as much as to say, when the opinion, which intrinsically, or at least in his private judgment seems less probable, becomes extrinsically the more probable, he may follow either; of which in this chapter I am yet to give a more particular account; but it no way rifles the present doctrine. Only this I add, if it were lawful and safe to follow the less probable opinion, and reject the greater, then in such questions, which are only determined by authority and sentences of wise men, it were lawful to choose any thing that any one of them permits, and every probable doctor may rescind all the laws in Christendom, and expound all the precepts of the Gospel in easy senses, and change

discipline into liberty, and confound interests, and arm rebels against their princes, and flocks against their shepherds and prelates, and set up altar against altar, and mingle all things sacred and profane. Because if any one says it is lawful, all that have a mind to do evil things, may choose him for their guide, and his opinion for their warranty.

3. To the third, I answer, that the opinion which is more common, is not always the more probable; for it may be false and heretical and if at any times it seems more probable, it is because men understand little or nothing of it. But then if it were so, yet this opinion, which is lately taught by the modern casuists, is not the more common, simply and absolutely; it was once the less common, and whether it be so now or no, it is hard to tell; but admit it be so, yet the community and popularity of opinion is but a degree of extrinsical probability, and is apt to persuade only in the destitution of other arguments, which because they are not wanting in this question, the trick in the objection appears trifling.

RULE VI.

When two Opinions seem equally probable, the last Determination is to be made by Accidents, Circumstances, and collateral Inducements.

IN the matter of this rule it is variously disputed; some affirming that the understanding must for ever remain suspended, and the action wholly omitted, as in the case of a doubting conscience. Others give leave to choose either part, as a man please, making the will to determine the understanding.

The first cannot be true, because while they both seem equally consonant to reason, it cannot be dishonest to choose that, which to me seems reasonable; and, therefore, the understanding may choose practically. They are like two things equally good, which alike move the will, and the choosing of the one is not a refusing the other, when they cannot be both enjoyed; but like the taking one piece of gold, and letting the other that is as good, alone: and the

action is determined by its own exercise, not by an antecedent reason.

But neither can it be, in all cases and questions, that the determination can be totally omitted; as if the question be whether this ought to be done, or ought to be let alone, and both of them seem equally probable; so also if the question be, whether it may be done, or may be let alone: in these cases, it is certain one part must be chosen; for the very suspending the act is not a suspending of the choice, the not doing it is a compliance with one of the probabilities. The lazy fellow in the apologue, that told his father he lay in bed in the morning, to hear Labour and Idleness dispute whether it were best to rise or to lie still, though he thought their arguments equally probable, yet he did not suspend his act, but, without determining, he put the sentence of Idleness in execution and so it must be in all questions of general inquiry concerning lawful or unlawful, necessary or not necessary; the equal probability cannot infer a suspension or an equal noncompliance.

But neither can the second be true; for the will must not alone be admitted an arbitrator in this affair; for besides that it is of dangerous consequence to choose an opinion because we will, it is also unnatural, the will being no ingredient into the actions of understanding. The will may cause the understanding to apply a general proposition to a particular case, and produce a practical judgment by that general measure, without particular arguments in the question apportioned to the proper matter, as I before discoursed". But when the understanding is wholly at dispute about the proper arguments of two propositions, if the will interposes, the error that happens, if the conclusion falls on the wrong side, is without excuse, because it is chosen; and the truth is not so safe and useful, because it came by an incompetent instrument, by that which was indifferent to this truth or the other. Indeed, if there be no other way to determine the question, the will must do it, because there is no avoiding it; but if there be any other way, this must not be taken; but ordinarily there is.

The third way, therefore, is this: The determination may

be made by any thing that can be added to either side" in genere rationis." As the action that is prepared, stands more ready for my circumstances; that which does me less violence, is more proportionable to any of those events, which in prudence are to me considerable. It is indifferent whether Paula Romana give her alms to the poor of Nicopolis, or to the poor dwelling near the monastery of Bethlehem; but because these dwelt nearer, and were more fitted for her circumstances, this was enough to turn the scale and make the determination. It is like putting on that garment that is nearest me, not this rather than the other; nor yet this because I will, but this because it is here. The use of this rule is, to prevent a probable conscience to become doubtful, and yet (as much as may be) to avoid the interposition of the will in the practical judgments of conscience.

This rule is to be enlarged with this addition; That if the conscience, by reason of the equal probability of two opinions so standing without any determining and deciding circumstances and accidents, cannot decree on any side neither by intrinsical nor extrinsical means, that is, neither by proper arguments nor collateral inducements, no action ought to follow; but the case of which the question is, if it can be, ought to be omitted, as in the case of a doubting conscience; which, though as I showed before, cannot happen when the question is general of lawful or unlawful, necessary or unnecessary, yet it may happen in particular cases, as whether this thing be lawful or that, whether this is to be done or the other. It may happen that neither of them ought, and, in the present supposition, neither of them can; that is, if the man suffers his dispute to pass into a doubt...

In other cases, a man may safely take any course, which he finds probable, equally disputed, uncertain in itself, contrarily determined by doctors disputing with fair arguments. For in this case malice is no ingredient; and if interest be, it is therefore lawful, because it is an extrinsical motive, apt and reasonable to be considered, and chosen, and pursued by fair means, if the interest itself have no foulness in it.

But of all the external motives, that can have influence in the determination of a sentence between two probabilities, a relation to piety is the greatest. He that chooses this,