Divine Comforts, Chapter 6
CHAP. VI. The Subject of Comfort, Inoffenſive to Man.
2. AS the Pſalmiſt maintain'd a powerful ſenſe of Duty to God, ſo he walk'd in a conſcientious obſervance of his Duty to Man; as will be evident by conſidering particulars, reſpecting his Equals, his Enemies, and his Superiours.
1. His Compaſſion to and Condolements of the Servants of God in Affliction, intimated ver. 5, 6. with his Prayers for their deliverance by the God of Revenges, ver. 1. and the comfortable relief and aſſurances he gives them, ver. 12, 13, 14, 15. teſtifie his love to the Children of God. And 2. That he was not awanting to his Enemies, appears in the inſtructive Rebukes he gives them, ver. 8, 9, 10, 11. and the ſevere Cautions and Warnings he preſents them, throughout the Pſalm. And often the denunciation of Wrath, by a terrible brandiſhing the Flaming Sword of a Divine Threat, in the Eyes of Conſcience, becomes a means through God's Concurrence, either to convert or at leaſt reſtrain a bold and impudent Sinner. Neither is it uſual for any Sinner, with ſeriouſneſs to look up to God, till he be firſt knock'd down by the dreadful menaces of the Law. Attrition is generally antecedent to Contrition, though often the motions to Contrition be firſt preſented. God himſelf humbles us ere he will exalt us. When the gentle attractives of Grace cannot draw us, the Terrors of his Wrath muſt drive us home to our Father's Houſe. When God prevails not by the Cords of a Man the Bands of Love, to win us into an ingenuous acknowledgement of him; he will further try to vanquiſh our ſtubbornneſs, by the direful Scorpions of his Indignation. And 'twas not incongruous for the Pſalmiſt to expreſs a Love to the Perſons even of wicked Perſecutors, in the ſame Methods that were made uſe of by his Maker. Laſtly, His conſcience of Duty to his Superiours, is plain from ver. 21, 22. compared. For though in ver. 21. he ſpeaks indefinitely, and in general of condemning the Righteous and Innocent Blood; yet the next ver. is determinate, and particular, plainly demonſtrating, that the Righteous and Innocent he ſpoke of were no other than himſelf, or that at leaſt he was one of them. They condemn the Righteous and Innocent Blood; but the Lord is my defence. Impertinent, if it were not, They condemn my Righteous Soul, my Innocent Blood. And of David this was undoubtedly true as he elſewhere witneſſes, Pſal. 59.3, 4. The Mighty are gathered againſt me, not for my Tranſgreſſion, nor for my Sin, O LORD. They run and prepare themſelves without my Fault. There they were gathered together, here they gather themſelves together; but 'twas againſt one whoſe Conſcience did not challenge him for any Crime that could merit this at their Hands. He could appeal to the Lord, to be a Witneſs of his Righteouſneſs and Innocency as to them, who as to him were not Righteous and Innocent, but framed miſchief againſt him by a Law. But I cannot imagine, that in a ſolemn Addreſs to God, this Holy Perſon would profeſs to be ſo juſt and harmleſs, if it were only ſo in outward ſemblance and act. Could he diſſemble ſo groſsly (that is act the part of a Knave to God and Man) as to pretend theſe, and yet permit his Mind and Heart inwardly to boyl over in Gall and Bitterneſs, ready upon all occaſions to break out into Injury and Violence? Did he not know that the inward Luſt is as really a violation of Innocence, as the outward Act? And durſt he tell the Searcher of Hearts, that he was Innocent, when his Heart was Guilty? Well that which was juſt and right he practiſed, and his Tongue and Soul did not move in a contradiction to his Hands. No hurt he did, offer'd no wrong, either in Thought, Word or Deed. He was active for their good in Righteouſneſs; but not at all to recompence them Evil for Evil in Rancour and Revenge. Had he taken a contrary Courſe? Had he been any other than paſſive under their active Malice, it might have been a juſt impeach to both his Righteouſneſs and Innocency. Does he right that with-holds from Man his due? Does he no harm that acts to the prejudice and hurt of another? Let it then be granted, that his activity in an oppoſite way would have rendred him Guilty.
Particularly, 'twas a Throne of Iniquity that did perſecute him, for no Crime of his own: Yet you ſee he does not in the leaſt attempt or deſign to avenge himſelf with his own Hand, or ſtretch it out againſt the Lord's Anointed, as he ſpeaks 1 Sam. 26.9, 11. He peremptorily determines, that it could not be done without Guilt. Thus here he appropriates Revenge ſolely to God, as his Royalty and Prerogative, ver. 1. it belongs to thee; and what then has any other to do with it? This is a plain renunciation of all right to it himſelf: The Repetition cannot but have a ſingular Emphaſis. Twice, O Lord God of Revenges, or to whom Vengeance belongs. Sure the Holy Penman would not have born up himſelf in Conſcience of Innocence, with reſpect either to God or Man, had he harboured any deſigns to uſurp the proper Honour of the God of Revenges, in ſeeking by Violence to right himſelf, againſt that Throne of Iniquity, which even by a Law endeavoured to do him manifeſt wrong. So Sacred is the Majeſty of a Prince, that a good Conſcience cannot be maintain'd in affronting it, though it act Unrighteouſly, much leſs when it acts righteouſly under an abſolute and unlimited Monarchy. There's no relief on Earth againſt a Throne, though of Iniquity. From its unjuſt Judgment we have with the Pſalmiſt liberty of Appeal to Heaven; but to attempt otherways, is a manifeſt violation of the Rights both of God and Man. Of God, by invading his Property. Of the King, for who made thee his Judge, and ſet thee above him? Let the Supreme Monarch that rules be what he will, Juſt or Unjuſt, Jew or Heathen, or Turk, or Papiſt, or Proteſtant, true Worſhiper, or Idolater, Chriſtian, Antichriſtian, Religious, Irreligious, Holy or Wicked, I find not any Warrant, either in the Word of God, from Precept or Example, nor in any Ancient Father, not in any approved Proteſtant Writer, for any Private Perſons or Society of ſuch, to oppoſe him by Violence, but the quite contrary. Calvin I know is charg'd with Antimonarchical Principles, but how juſtly will appear to any ſerious Conſiderer of that laſt Chapter of his Inſtitutions; where §. 7. ſub fin. he ſays, The Government of one which leaſt pleaſed the Great Wits of Old is commended by an eximious Teſtimony of God, above the reſt. And §. 8. permits not private Men to diſpute which is beſt. And though he upon ſome accounts like Ariſtocracy, or a temper of that and Polity, as beſt: Yet ſaith, Non id quidem per ſe, Not of it ſelf. But becauſe Kings rarely moderate themſelves, &c. which plainly intimates that he judged Monarchy the beſt in it ſelf, though Monarchs not always the beſt: Yet whatever be leſs eligible, ex vitio perſonarum, he will not allow ſo much as the deſire of a change in the Government ſet over us by God; but condemns it as Fooliſh, Needleſs, and Noxious. Non modo ſtulta erit, & ſupervacua, ſed prorſus noxi… etiam cogitatio. And how ſtrict he is in requiring Subjection, even to Tyrannical Princes, See §. 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31. which would be too tedious to tranſcribe. That which ſome pick out to ſnarl at, in the end of §. 31. De privatis hominibus ſemper loquor, Nam ſiqui nunc ſint, &c. as though he allow'd the three States to reſiſt the King: This cannot be concluded from his Words, which are Hypothetical, limited with a Forte, and 'tis but pro officio intercedere, and they are only Perſons, [qui ſe Dei ordinatione libertatis tutores poſitos norunt] which he does not forbid [non veto]. And let any Man of ſence judge whether this be a true or falſe Propoſition. Thoſe Perſons who know themſelves ordain'd of God to be Guardians of Peoples Liberties ought to interceed according to the tenor of their Office, with ferocient Princes, in the Peoples behalf, and not connive at their Oppreſſions. To make pro Officio, contra Officium ſuum, is wiſe Interpretation; but ſince he confines them within the boundaries of their Office, or Duty, he muſt be a very Spider indeed, that can ſuch Poyſon out of it. But that may ſeem more important which we find here, ver. 16. He demands, Who will riſe up for me, &c. Whatever he meant doubtleſs he judg'd it conſiſtent with Innocency, and a good Conſcience. To clear which,
1. The Hebrew to a Word runs thus, Who will riſe to me, with the Evil Doers? Who will ſtand to me, with the Workers of Iniquity? Now make what you can of it for the Doctrine of oppoſing Princes. Admit that [foreign] may be Tranſlated [For me] or [in my behalf] as 'tis Gen. 23.8, &c. Yet foreign does not import Oppoſition and Contrariety, but Conjunction and Aſſociation; being of the kindred of foreign People. And 'tis not (that I remember) any where in the Bible beſide tranſlated [againſt.] In all places where the Holy Ghoſt would ſignifie the Enmity or Contrariety of Perſons, or things, another Prepoſition is uſed, either [foreign] to ſelect one place of Multitudes, becauſe very like the Phraſe here, Pſal. 34.16. The Face of the LORD is foreign againſt them that do evil, &c. Or [foreign] to look no farther than this Pſalm, and but two Verſes below my Text, ver. 21. foreign. They troop againſt the Soul of the Juſt. 'Tis not ſure for nothing that the Spirit of God here lays aſide the uſual manner of expreſſing himſelf. The reaſon is above our reach. But may not this account bid fair toward a Probability? That poſſibly ſome Perſons were with Saul, and his Pertakers, from whom the Pſalmiſt had reaſon to expect better things, than from thoſe who were his profeſt Enemies. The ſenſe then will be, Which of you all, that being born down with the ſtream of the times, aſſociate with ill Men, will now riſe and ſtand for me, to interpoſe and ſpeak in my behalf, as once did the truly noble Jonathan, a Friend incomparable?
2. The end for which he expected they ſhould riſe and ſtand up, is not expreſs'd in that Verſe; but the next has it expreſs [a help] Ʋnleſs the LORD (ſupply out of the former Verſe) [had riſen or ſtood] a help to me, &c. For ſince thoſe Words will make good ſenſe, why ſhould aliene be inſerted? Therefore on the other hand, make up the former Verſe, by adding that out of this which was the end of their expected riſing and ſtanding, and 'tis thus, Who will riſe or ſtand a help to me with evil Doers, &c. Now conſider the quality of this help he expected, was it Forcible, Violent, Vengeful, by Arms and Bloodſhed? No, this Pſalm repudiates it in his appeals to the God of Revenges: And 1 Sam. 24.12, 13. and 26.8, 9, 10, 11, 16, 23. He diſclaims and abhors it as ſinful; urgently dehorts from it, and rebukes the temptation to it, when irritated by his Followers, and invited by a fair opportunity and planſible argument. Behold the day of the which the LORD ſaid unto thee, Behold I will deliver thine Enemy into thy hand, that thou mayſt do to him as ſhall ſeem good unto thee. It was then Moral help that he expected. Help by Counſel and Perſwaſion, not by Power and Compulſion: Such as he had from God, which was not a coactive, but a gentle, rational, and unforcible bowing the wills of Adverſaries to deſiſt. God did not conſtrain, but incline the Mind and Heart of Saul to ceaſe the purſuit at Selah Hammalekoth; 1 Sam. 23.26, 27, 28. To leave him untoucht, and return to his place, when by an experiment he was convinced of his Innocency, chap. 24.22. and a ſecond chap. 26.25. And ſince he foreſaw that the LORD would cut of thoſe Children of Men who ſtirr'd up Saul againſt him, 1 Sam. 26.19. And here doubles the expreſſion of his aſſurance thereof, ver. 23. 'Tis madneſs to think that the aid he expected from Men was to uſurp upon God, and take the work out of his hands. Therefore when the Amalekite told him he had kill'd Saul it coſt him his Life, 2 Sam. 1.14, 15, 16.
The Pſalmiſt then was a Man that made Conſcience of his Allegiance to his Prince, though wicked, unjuſt, and a Perſecutor. No Man can maintain together Diſloyalty and Innocence. The Office of Kings remains unvitiated, under the viciouſneſs of their Perſons. Nero was the Miniſter of God, Rom. 13. in reſpect of Authority, though the Devils Servant in his private Capacity. Subjection and Loyalty is due to the Throne, and the Man in it, not to the Beaſt in the bottomleſs Pit of Immorality and Barbarouſneſs. Our Duty requires an owning him Politically, rather than Ethically, i. e. we muſt of neceſſity be ſubject to his Power, acting as the Vicegerent of God, and here obey him in every thing. But we muſt not be actively ſubject to his Luſts, acting as the Bondſlave of Satan, nor therein obey, or imitate him. Yet do not his Crimes to us deveſt him of his Right, any more than a Father. I find no exceptions or difference in the Precept, Et ubi lex non diſtinguit non eſt diſtinguendum. Where the Law limits not, we muſt not. Nothing that we ſuffer from Superiors can null the bond of the Firſt Command. The Goſpel as well as the Law obliges to be ſubject for Conſcience ſake, Rom. 13.5. Ye muſt needs be ſubject not only for Wrath, i. e. for fear of Puniſhment; but for Conſcience ſake; i. e. out of obedience to God's Command, and from ſenſe of Duty. In ſum, ſince the Powers that be are God's Ordinations, we muſt obey all their lawful Commands, ſubmit to their juſt Cenſures and Puniſhments, pay them all their dues both of Reverence and Maintenance. But ſince there is an Authority paramount to theirs, which has the firſt and ſupreme right over us, and which we muſt obey, rather than Men; if we be commanded to do any thing forbidden or forbid to do any thing commanded by God, we muſt not obey, but be willing to ſuffer without reſiſtance. For whoever reſiſteth the Power reſiſteth the Ordinance of God, and they that reſiſt, ſhall receive to themſelves [foreign] Judgment to Condemnation, ver. 2. Now this reſiſtance conſiſts not in a modeſt refuſal to do or not do what theſe Powers may enjoyn, contrary to the Injunctions of God; but in a diſorderly, or forcible oppoſition to their Perſons or Lawful Commands; [foreign] being to ſet up an order contrary to their order, which is here reported damnable, i. e. when their order is not againſt the order of God; their Laws not oppoſite to his. I know not but that this is a ſound Rule, That the Higher Powers are to be diſobey'd in nothing, except it be as plainly forbidden in Scripture or Nature, as diſobedience to thoſe Powers is. I do not ſay expreſsly forbid, for ſometimes a Conſequence may be as plain as a Propoſition. But if a Man be not as fully ſatisfied from clear Evidence, that he cannot obey the Magiſtrate without diſobeying God; as he may be ſatisfy'd, that he muſt obey the Magiſtrate, in all things where God is not diſobey'd; he cannot diſobey with a good and ſafe Conſcience. For 'tis a Sin to diſobey where God interpoſes not, as well as a Sin to obey where he forbids. Nothing can take off the obligation to obey, but only Divine Authority, which laid it on. If you are not ſure that you have God's Warrant to diſoblige you from Obedience, you cannot be ſure that you do not ſin. For what can repeal God's Law to obey,Cautiſſimi cujuſ que praeceptum eſt: Quod dubitas, ne feceris. but only God. And if you be not ſure that you do not ſin, you certainly do ſin, i. e. act doubtingly not in Faith, which is contrary to a good Conſcience, Rom. 14. ult.
Since then the Command to obey is indubitable, what muſt I do when the matter commanded is not indubitably Lawful or Unlawful? If the thing in reality be lawful, I ſin in diſobeying the Power, if unlawful, I ſin in diſobeying God. Suppoſe I have weighty reaſons to induce me to believe the unlawfulneſs, and but common to eſtabliſh the lawfulneſs; only they are enforc'd with the weight of Authority; I am not ſatisfy'd beyond all ſcruple, that I ſhall not ſin againſt God in obeying Man; yet the Arguments from God's Law in Scripture, Nature, and the Reaſon of the thing would ballance my Judgment, did not that inartificial Argument interpoſe, the Judgment of many Learned and Reverend Men, the Judgment of the Publick Conſcience as of late it loves to be call'd. How ſhall I ſteer in this Caſe?
Anſ. 1. The higheſt deference is to be made to the Publick Judgment of Authority, and the Private Judgment of the Learned; and I am obliged to ſuſpect my own Judgment, and Reaſon, when it runs counter to theirs; and proceed with the greateſt Caution and Impartiality, in forming my Sentiments and Arguments, and beware of Pride and Obſtinacy; give a full teſtimony of my Humility and willingneſs to be informed, and uſe all poſſible means for that purpoſe.
2. 'Tis a very unſafe reſolution of this Caſe, which I find in the Reverend and Judicious Dr. Saunderſon, Better obey doubtingly, than diſobey doubtingly; as allowing a leſs Sin to avoid a greater. For the Apoſtle, Rom. 14. ult. determines, that to act doubtingly is a Sin, immediately againſt Conſcience, mediately againſt God. For ſince Conſcience ſuſpects the Act to be a Sin againſt God, yet admits it againſt its own ſenſe, 'tis all one to it as if it were really a Sin againſt God, though perhaps it be not. The Act is againſt the ſuppoſed Authority of God, which at preſent the Conſcience takes to be real, therefore this diſtemper of Conſcience is as real Rebellion againſt God, as if it acted againſt the cleareſt Light imaginable. For apparent and real to Conſcience are all one, though not in themſelves.
The Law of God in General, makes Sin and Duty, but not immediately to me in particular, whilſt I am inculpably ignorant of it: Promulgation being eſſential to the obligatorineſs of a Law. Except it be ſo publiſh'd that none without their fault can be ignorant of it, they are without fault in the violation of it. The next and immediate ground of the binding of a Law, is the apprehenſion and conviction of Conſcience, that it is impoſed by juſt Authority, with an intention to bind as a Law; or that it is a Law obligatory in its own Nature. Not that Laws ſtand or fall by the Judgment of Conſcience, as if Conſcience's judging them to be or not be Laws, gave or depriv'd them of their Obligatory Power; but that if there be ſufficient light to make it out to Conſcience (not wittingly and willingly prejudic'd and blinded) that this is, or is not, the will of the Lawgiver, ſupreme or ſubordinate; accordingly it is, or is not, obliged to receive and own this as Law. For if it be clear to any rational conſideration what the Legiſlators Mind is, with his intention to bind to obſervance; this is a ſufficient Promulgation, and doth immediately found the Obligatorineſs to us. In ſhort an unknowable Law binds none; becauſe not to be, and not to be known or knowable, is to us all one. But as ſoon as known, the Law binds the knower. For as Dr. Saunderſon well determines, The preſent Light in the Mind for the time being, is the next and immediate Rule of Conſcience; though not the ſupreme and adequate. And if this Light be derived from, and conformable to its prime and higheſt Rule, the Will of God revealed in Nature or Scripture, in acting according to it, 'tis a good and right Conſcience; but bad when acting againſt its Light and Sentiments, though they be erroneous, i. e. contrary to the revealed mind of God. For an erring Conſcience hampers and entangles a Man, though it really oblige not; becauſe the Man judges that really to be the Mind of God, which is indeed an Error, though to him unknown ſo to be. Finally acting againſt an erring Conſcience is formally evil, thongh materially good. Acting according to an erroneous Conſcience, is formally good, but materially evil. Acting againſt a well informed Conſcience both materially and formally evil. Therefore that a Man may act without preſent and future rebuke of Conſcience, both his Light and his Act muſt be according to Rule. For then only 'tis both materially and formally Good, and except it be both, 'tis not acceptable to God; except it be both, the Man is not (though he may fanſie himſelf to be) really Innocent.
3. Where therefore both to obey and diſobey is queſtionable, a Man muſt not ſin againſt his Conſcience, doubting about the matter commanded, to avoid ſining againſt his Conſcience, doubting about the Authority commanding. For both are carefully to be eſchewed; but,
1. If the Command require not preſent obſervance, but permit a ſuſpence for a ſeaſon, a Man muſt diligently uſe all means, with all ſpeed and readineſs of Mind, to get his doubts one way or other reſolved, out of the revealed Will of God, which is the Rule of Conſcience. For that which ties Conſcience muſt looſe it, or 'tis faſt for ever. As it has a Rule to bind, ſo it muſt have a Rule to unbind it. Pretended Conſcience without Rule is but Conceit: Conſcience againſt Rule, Corruption.
2. If no time be allow'd for ſuſpence, or if in the uſe of the utmoſt means no Reſolution can be obtain'd; a Man muſt quietly and patiently ſubmit to the Penalty. To ſuffer though for an erring Conſcience is no ſin, if the beſt have been done to direct it aright; but 'tis always a ſin to act againſt Conſcience, whether reſolv'd or doubting, as an evident and impudent affronting the real or ſuppoſed Authority of God, owned by Conſcience. If then the Authorities and Powers ſet over thee be good, and command Lawful things, thou muſt be ſubject in Active Obedience; elſe thou ſinneſt both againſt God and the King, and thy Conſcience too, if it know them to be ſuch. If the Supreme Magiſtrates be Erroneous, Heretical, Wicked, Tyrannical, thou muſt be ſtill ſubject, in Active Obedience to their Lawful Commands, in Paſſive to their Unlawful. To a Tyrant with Title, both in Body and Mind. To a Tyrant without Title, in Body. For thy Mind and Heart muſt follow the Title and Right though thy outward Man be enſlaved to the Uſurpation. Subjection then is abſolutely indiſpenſible to all Powers whatſoever. Even as 'tis in the caſe of Parents and Children, Maſters and Servants; which therefore are together with Prince and People, &c. comprehended under one general Name in the Fifth Command, and the Duties of the Inferiours under the common notion of Honour. That we may rationally carry the particular Inſtances of that Honour from any one ſort to all the reſt reſpectively, mutatis mutandis. And poſſibly this may be one reaſon of St. Peter's ſubjoyning the Duties of Servants immediately after thoſe of Subjects, 1 Epiſt. 2.13. He requires ſubmiſſion to Kings, &c. 1. For the Lord's ſake. 2. As the Will of God, ver. 15.3. accounting this a well doing, which 4. will ſilence the Ignorance of fooliſh Men.
Then that Servants be ſubject with all fear, not only to the good and gentle, but even froward Maſters, as 1. Thank-worthy. 2. An exerciſe of Conſcience toward God, ver. 19. though they ſuffer wrongfully: And 3. Honourable, though 'tis no honour to bear buffetings for Faults, ver. 20.4. Acceptable to God. 5. A thing to which Chriſtians are called. 6. A piece of Conformity to Chriſt, ver. 20. Theſe are Precepts plain enough, and as ſtrongly enforced with Argument, that a Man had need to be ſecure that he have an ample and clear demonſtration of a releaſe, from the obligation of them, if he intend not to violate his Conſcience, in a non-obſervance of them. From Servants, parity, nay ſuperiority of Reaſon will carry the Rule to Subjects, in as much as the benefit of the Publick is a more noble and neceſſary end, than that of a Private Family, and the neglect thereof more fatal and dangerous, iſſuing in Blood, Ruin and Confuſion.
And now ſeeing Laws ſo ſtrict and ſevere are impoſed upon Inferiours by God, neceſſitating their obedience; a ſingular Prudence, Tenderneſs and Conſcience is required in Superiours as they reſpect their own Salvation, to ſee that they impoſe nothing by their Authority, that may intangle Men in Sin or Snares, as underſtanding that they are only Lords over their outward Man, not their Conſciences, and that compulſion to Sin renders the Compeller a Principal, and therefore if he reform not lyable to a great ſhare of the Damnation. However the Subject Party may with a good Conſcience obey, (as in paying unreaſonable Taxes) where the Supreme does not maintain a good Conſcience in commanding, but grievouſly ſins both againſt Man and God.
I have made a large Excurſion, (if that be not an impertinent Word, in ſo pertinent a caſe) 1. To obviate a Slander, as though we generally entertain'd odd and unſound Principles, contrary to the Duty of Subjects. 2. To direct the tendereſt part of Man, in the tendereſt point of general and preſent Concernment. 3. To correct the unſound and unſafe Principles of two Extremes, 1. Of ſome, who needleſsly to advance Authority, do too much debaſe Conſcience. 2. Of others who in an ungrounded deference to Conſcience, too much depreciate and depreſs Authority. I heartily ſubſcribe to the Doctrine of Rom. 13. in the full latitude of its ſence, and readily acknowledge, that Rom. 14. follows after it; but muſt not deny that the one as well as the other is part of Canonical Scripture, of the Chriſtian Law, of perpetual Obligation, nor affirm that one is inconſiſtent with, and abrogates the other.
The chief Exerciſe of Conſcience towards Men is towards the chief of Men. God's Vicegerents on Earth may claim the firſt reſpect from his Vicegerent in our Souls; but muſt not engroſs all entirely. We in Conſcience are obliged to a further Duty to Inferiours and Equals, nay even Enemies; in all things to ſeek their good, that's Righteouſneſs, in nothing to do them hurt, that's Innocency: In every thing to pleaſe them for their good to Edification, Rom. 15.1, 2, 3. that's Perfection. 'Tis true, I am a Devil, if I humour Men in their Luſts, indulge them in their Impieties and Senſualities: A Dog if I fawn upon and flatter them in their Extravagances, for my own ends. A ſenceleſs unprofitable Block, if I be altogether unconcern'd. My firſt care muſt be, not to lead them into Sin or Temptation; my next, to induce them to love and practiſe Goodneſs; alway having an Eye at their Temporal Good as well as Spiritual, though this mainly, elſe ſhall I violate a Divine Law, Gal. 6.10. and therefore violate my Innocency and Conſcience, and therefore my Comfort. I am obliged to give no offence to Jew, Gentile, nor the Church of God, 1 Cor. 10.32. Not to put a ſtumbling-block or occaſion of falling in my Brother's way, Rom. 14.13. and a moſt dreadfully ſevere Sanction urges and enforces this Law againſt Offences, Matth. 18.7.
By Scandal or Offence to Men, I do not mean what meerly tends to diſpleaſe, but to defile: Words, or Deeds, or Omiſſions, inducing others to Sin, either by acting againſt the Law of God and Conſcience, or forbearing to do their Duty. The World is at ſuch a paſs, that a Man can do nothing but 'twill diſpleaſe, and even Profeſſors of the higheſt form in their own Imaginations, (who therefore ſhould be more candid and aequanimous) bitterly ſtorm and cenſure others, who will not both againſt their Reaſon and Conſcience pleaſe them, in their unreaſonable humours. This is not to be valued at all. Mine own Light and Reaſon muſt be the Principle to guide my Conſcience, according to the Rules of God's Word, in the choice of ſuch Methods of pleaſing Men for their good to Edification, Rom. 15.1. (which by God's Grace I will endeavour) that I may not be one of the branded Menpleaſers, Gal. 1.10. and plague my own Soul for ever by pleaſing another for his hurt, and to his Damnation. If any Man think to impoſe his Judgment, Fancy, or Humour upon me, as the guide of my Conſcience herein, he really ſcandalizes me. If he do not convince me out of the Will of God, which is the ſole Rule of Conſcience, he lays a ſtumbling-block before me, to induce me to ſin, meerly that I may gratifie his Imperiouſneſs, Pride, and Capriciouſneſs. I will keep my way, and follow my Light and my Rule; if any be diſpleaſed with it, let them bark on, and bite too, it hurts me not. I'll give away my Goods, and my Labours, and my Liberty, yea and even my Life, as far as I can, with a good Conſcience, to pleaſe, ſo as ſpiritually to profit; but give away my Light, my Rule, my Conſcience, I will not, I dare not, I cannot. 'Tis a double ſcandal giv'n firſt to me, when Men would thus Biaſs me, to a blind Servitude, unto their Wills; another to them, when in a fond aſſentatiouſneſs, I become a Pander to their laſcivient Humours, and imperious Imaginations. My Soul is of a more noble Extraction and Temper, than to debaſe it ſelf, to the turn-skin trade of a Paraſite, like a Serpent, with the ſame Tongue to lick and kill, or Great Alexander's Miſs, who was fed with nothing but Poyſons that her kiſſes might be deleterious and Murder him. No lighter would my Crime be ſhould I violate my Conſcience, in being a pleaſer of Man rather than God.
Neither therefore in this nor any other way will I ſcandalize my Brother knowingly, nor muſt he exerciſe that Tyranny over my Conſcience, as to give other Law to it, beſides what God hath preſcribed in Nature or Scripture. My Practice ſhall be at his Devotion, as far as it doth not intrench upon my duly regulated Judgment, and wary will I be, that no unweighed Sentiments arreſt my Mind, and miſguide my Conſcience. I'll have an Eye, and an Ear, and a Heart open to receive all Truth freely, without Prejudice or Partiality, and this from any hands whatever, examining and proving all things, as fully as the infirmity of my intellect will permit. But a ſlavery to the Opinions of Men againſt the balance of mine own clear and diſtinct Reaſonings I abhor.
1. I will not do any thing which is every way indifferent, if it be likely in it ſelf, or be found by experience of a tempting Nature and Tendency, If any Man, either through the quality of my Act, or the power of my Example, in matters of that nature, be drawn into Sin; or if it be very probable that he will, upon ſuch inducements, either tranſgreſs the Law of God, or imitate me with a doubting Conſcience; here will I freely forbear the uſe of my Liberty, to prevent his Sin, that I may not make it my own by Participation; but then I muſt not omit any known Duty, nor commit any known Sin my ſelf, though poſſibly it might prevent his Sin. For I muſt not venture my own Soul by diſhonouring God, to preſerve ano. Do Evil, that Good may come, Rom. 3.8.
2. But if in indifferent things, my Liberty be determined, as by the command of a Lawful Superiour, I am in a greater ſtrait. For not to obey the Magiſtrate in Lawful things is a Sin; and by my Practice to induce my weak Brother to Sin, in imitating me, is alſo a Sin; What Rule has my Conſcience in this Perplexity? It muſt be conſidered,
1. That my weak Brother's forbearance to obey, in a lawful thing is a Sin againſt God, though not his Conſcience; and therefore my forbearance will edifie him in Sin againſt the Law of God, that commands Obedience, although it prevent the Sin againſt his Conſcience; and the error of this cannot null the Sin againſt that. So that forbear or not forbear I ſcandalize him, in the one really, in the other putatively; when he acts againſt his Conſcience he thinks he ſins againſt God in the matter done, but does not; in diſobeying Authority he ſins againſt God, yet thinks it not. In this he ſins immediately againſt God, becauſe he diſobeys God's civil Vicegerent in Publick, in the other he ſins mediately againſt God, becauſe he diſobeys his Spiritual Vicegerent in Private. Now I conceive that my way here is to do my Duty in obeying the Magiſtrate, wherein I ſin not, whereas I doubly ſin if I do not. 1. Againſt the Law of Subjection and Obedience, ingaging me to the Magiſtrate. 2. The Law of Charity that requires me not to ſcandalize my Brother. If to gratifie his ſcrupuloſity I forbear, I do certainly know that he ſins in diſobeying. But 'tis only an accidental ſcandal may or may not happen, that he ſhould be emboldned by my Example, to act againſt his Conſcience.
To throw this off the Stage, enter Chriſtian Liberty; which to reſtrain is Sin, though by a Perſon in Authority, having Laws under him.
Anſ. True, but then be ſure that it be indeed Chriſtian Liberty, leaſt aſſerting it forfeit and loſe your civil and corporal Liberty. Now becauſe a right underſtanding and uſe of Chriſtian Liberty hath a ſpecial influence into Comfort and Peace of Conſcience. Let's a little conſider it.
Let it be heedfully obſerved, that true Chriſtian Liberty doth not conſiſt meerly in the indifferent uſe or omiſſion of things not commanded nor forbidden, but in the releaſe of Conſcience from an obligation to do or omit ſome things, under pain of Damnation. Thus are we ſet at Liberty from the rigour of the Law or Covenant of Works, which required perfect, perſonal and perpetual Obedience, upon peril of Death. The Covenant of Grace doth not diſoblige from ſuch obedience, but from the peril of Death, though we come ſhort, provided we act ſincerely. This is the main of our Chriſtian Liberty. Not a freedom to do or not do, but a freedom from Penalty, upon an eaſter Condition. And this is all our Hope, Comfort, and Salvation.
Under the Jewiſh Law were included many Ceremonials, things in their own nature neither Good nor Evil; yet that Law made the omiſſion of them Sin, expoſing to Damnation. Chriſt by his Goſpel hath ſet us at Liberty. How? What, to do or omit them at Pleaſure? No ſuch matters. For then 'twere lawful to Sacrifice, to keep the Paſſover, to Circumciſe, &c. as well as forbear. No, the Liberty granted us muſt be doubly diſtinguiſh'd.
1. Into Natural and Adventitious.
The Indifferency of the uſe or omiſſion of Lawful things, is a part of Natural not Adventitious Liberty, which underſtand thus.
Some things which were in their own Nature lawful to be uſed, or not uſed, God determined on one ſide, by poſitive Law, under the Moſaical Diſpenſation: But over and above there were things made the matter of poſitive Laws, which would never have entred into the Imaginations of Men, had not the firſt notices thereof come from God. Who could ever have thought of ſuch a thing as Circumciſion, &c. had not the firſt Injunction thereof proceeded from Heaven. Our Natural Liberty did conſiſt in a freedom from that, and like Yoaks. But not in an indifferency to uſe or not uſe them. So then, by the Law of our Native Liberty, we may uſe or not uſe ſome things without Sin; there's an indifferency on both ſides; as to take up a Straw or let it alone, &c. Yet alſo the indifferency does naturally lie only on one ſide, in other things as to continue the Body in its Natural State, without Circumciſion. But God for wiſe and holy purpoſes having abridged the Jews of this Natural Liberty for a ſeaſon; when the reaſon of thoſe Laws ceaſed, was pleas'd to aboliſh them, whereby by we became reinſtated in our natural Right and Freedom, which otherwiſe thoſe Laws, when devulged to us, would have taken from us. Now the reaſon of impoſing thoſe Laws was to ſuccour the infirmity of the Jews in two things.
1. In Faith, of which nature are all the things impos'd which have a Typical ſignificancy, as Sacrifices, &c.
2. In Manners, of which ſort are all that have a moral ſignificancy, as Meats, Waſhings, &c.
But now Jeſus the ſubſtance of thoſe Typical Shadows, being come in the Fleſh, the Laws concerning them were ipſo facto vacated; and by the more plentiful effuſion of his Spirit of Truth and Grace, thorowly furniſhing Men for exact Moral Goodneſs, he took away the neceſſity both of remembring us thereof, and eeking it out by Waſhings, Circumciſion, &c. The Scriptures of the Old and New Teſtament as a compleat Law from the Spirit of Truth, doing the one more ſufficiently than a few dumb ſigns; and the New Nature communicated by the Spirit of Grace, together with Chriſt's Merit all-ſufficiently doing the other. This is the Liberty I call
Adventitious, not that 'tis new but newly given; not that we never had it, but had it reſtor'd, after an interruption. During the reſtraint 'twas ſin to uſe it. To Chriſt we owe, that now we may again uſe it without ſin, as at firſt before God abridged it; and this is that we call Chriſtian Liberty in things indifferent as contradiſtinct to Natural. For Chriſt as Redeemer did not parchaſe our Natural Liberty, but gave it as Creator: 'Tis only the Adventitious that we enjoy, by vertue of his Merit; 'tis only this that we are entruſted with the Preſervation and Vindication of, by the New Teſtament.
2. Liberty is either Poſitive or Negative.
The former conſiſts in an indifferency to act this, or that, or the other way at pleaſure. The latter in being loos'd from the obligation to act. That which Chriſt the Redeemer beſtows, is chiefly of this latter ſort. We are diſobliged, looſed from the Ceremonial Bands wherewith the Jews were tyed, ſo as we need not to act as they, under that Oeconomy. 'Tis no ſin to us to omit; incurrs no Penalty. And this freedom from the guilt and puniſhment due for Omiſſion, is indeed a privilege, which conſtitutes the very eſſence of the Covenant of Grace, in one part of it. The tenor thereof in its Negative part being this, viz. Thy Imperfections, Failures, Omiſſions, ſhall not be imputed as Sins effecting thy Damnation. This for want of a better Word I call Negative Liberty. Although thou do not Circumciſe, do not Sacrifice, do not Eat a Paſchal Lamb, do not Waſh, &c. thou doſt not ſin, thou ſhalt not be cut off from thy People, from my Heaven. This and none other in theſe indifferent Matters is Chriſtian Liberty, the Purchaſe and Gift of Jeſus Chriſt our Lord.
So that except Magiſtrates do again introduce the Ceremonial Law in whole or part, they do not at all touch upon Chriſtian Liberty, but Natural only, which they are allow'd to reſtrain in civil things, upon juſt occaſions, as is evident from not only Scripture and Reaſon, but the practice of all Nations, and Ages, and Families, For would it not be ſweet to hear a Child or Servant reply to their Superiours, commanding them to light a Candle, &c. 'Tis not lawful for you to reſtrain my Liberty. Had you not commanded I might have obey'd, but your impoſing has made it unlawfal. Oh dainty, delicate Reaſoning! Yet ſuch as ſome fob off their Conſciences withal. 'Tis the ſame thing, when they command in the Circumſtantials of Divine Worſhip, &c. I charge you to be preſent at Eight of the Clock, Morning and Evening, to joyn in Family Prayer, &c. No, had you not impos'd a time 'twould have been lawful, now 'tis not. Away with this Foolery.
In Civils then, and Circumſtantials of Spirituals the Magiſtrate hath a Power, not meerly directive but legiſlative, to whoſe Laws all are obliged to be ſubject in Conſcience of the Divine Law, the Fifth Command.
Now ſuppoſe the Magiſtrate by a ſettled Law have enjoyned ſome things, in their own nature indifferent, which, 1. Induce ſome to act againſt their doubting Conſciences, for fear of Penalty; whereas. 2. Others are well ſatisfied in the lawfulneſs of their Obedience, and accordingly do actually obey; but ſome may be induc'd by their example to obey with a heſitant Conſcience. What is adviſable?
1. Though the greateſt tenderneſs ought to be exerciſed towards Mens Conſciences, and ſingular Prudence be requiſite in Governors to direct them in the choice of Laws, that they may obtain with the greateſt inoffenſiveneſs; yet will not Mens being ſcandaliz'd be a ſufficient evidence of the ſinfulneſs of a Law, or ground to reverſe it, unleſs the ſcandal be very general, among the beſt, and wiſeſt, or ſomething in the matter or ſanction of the Law be at leaſt a moral cauſe thereof. For what can ſo politickly or wiſely be devis'd which Men of ſoft Heads, and hot Hearts, may not make occaſion of Sin; that there would never be an end of making and repealing Laws, if Men can but pretend ſcandal, and who beſide God knows what is pretence meerly, what not?
2. If fear of the Penalty occaſion the Scandal, from a Law about Indifferents; thoſe are not faultleſs who have not proportion'd the Penalty to the Crime, an indifferent tolerable pain to an indifferent fault.
3. Yet to be ſcandaliz'd or act againſt my Conſcience, for fear of ſuffering, is a Sin, the cauſe or inducement whereof will not excuſe though it may extenuate it. Will it avail a Man to ſay; I violated my Conſcience through Fear, any more than I vitiated my Neighbours Wife through Luſt; when the Fear and Luſt themſelves are Sins as well as thoſe they introduce. Therefore the Rule is, Suffer rather than Sin.
4. Either 'tis evident de facto, that ſome are ſcandaliz'd through a Law, or Example, or 'tis morally certain 'twill follow; or probable; or only poſſible. This laſt and probability, except the preſumption be ſtrong, are not to be regarded.
1. If the Law cannot be revers'd without prejudice to publick order, nor a diſpenſation obtain'd, Men muſt not defame Laws, but ſubmit. For the Law does not neceſſitate Sin, there's an outgate by ſuffering. Yet if the Law be needleſs; 'tis the firſt duty in the uſe of lawful means, to endeavour its Abrogation, or get a Diſpenſation, which if not feiſible, I ſay with Calvin, Inſtit. lib. ult. c…ult; §. 231. med.No other Mandate is given us, but of obeying and ſuffering.
2. To obey the Magiſtrate is a duty upon an affirmative Precept, which not binding ad ſemper, if my obeying induce my Brother to Sin, out of tenderneſs, I will ſuſpend for a ſeaſon, though I ſuffer; in the interim endeavouring
1. To give him ſatisfaction in the lawfulneſs of my Practice, and the neceſſity of my Duty, which if it convince not,
2. To demonſtrate that my Practice, enforces not his Imitation, ſince he may forbear and undergo the Penalty, as I have been willing to do for his ſake.
3. To let him underſtand that there may be danger of ſcandalizing my Superiors, i. e. irritating them to wrath, and to exerciſe greater ſeverities, both againſt me as a Sinner againſt my own Conſcience, which is ſatisfy'd of my duty to obey, even whilſt I ſuſpend; and alſo againſt him and others as obſtinate, and unſatisfiable, Wranglers, and diſobedient to juſt Authority without juſt Reaſon, the matter of the Law being indifferent, ex hypotheſi. This Conſideration has weight, we both hear and feel it, and may at leaſt balance the alledgement, that my compliance will edifie the Magiſtrate in the ſin of Perſecution.
Laſtly, If notwithſtanding he continue obſtinate, ſince to me 'tis clear, that only Fancy, not Reaſon, bottoms his diſobedience; I will proteſt againſt his Pertinacy, earneſtly dehort him from acting againſt his pretended Conſcience, which indeed is only blind Opinion, return to my Duty, and leave him to the Law.
For although my Charity may induce me for a ſeaſon to be willing to ſuffer for his ſake, yet my Conſcience will not permit me to do it always. Not that I pretend Conſcience to prevent ſuffering; but becauſe active Obedience, where I can is the primary intention of God in the Law that ſubjects me to the Magiſtrate, and therefore the firſt and main office of Conſcience. Paſſive Obedience is not the intention of the Law giver at all, in the Law as a Law, as being not enjoyn'd therein; 'tis only the enforcement of it, as a remedy againſt its violation; the hedge about it. 'Twill be no plea before God, to juſtifie my breach of his Laws, that I was willing to be damn'd; but an aggravation of my ſin, that I choſe ſo great an Evil as the Puniſhment, rather than ſubmiſſion to ſo great a Good as the Duty. I am bound to ſuſpend my Obedience, if I can, to prevent my Brothers Sin; but not ſinally to deny my Obedience and therein ſin my ſelf; to prevent his ſuffering, that is, damn my Soul, to ſave his Skin.
Wilt thou then, O my Soul, herein follow Chriſt, and perfectly ſubjugate thy ſelf to that noble Law of Ʋniverſal Love to thy Brother, whom thou haſt ſeen, that the immortal God whom thou haſt not ſeen may not charge thee with Hypocrifie in thy pretenſions of Love to himſelf. Live thou muſt, thou ſhalt, in true Love to thy Neighbour, or renounce all Love to thy ſelf. Profeſs and practiſe, as thou loveſt thy Purity, thy Peace, thy Salvation, a ſincere and cordial, not only Subjection and Honour, but Affection to thy Prince, Benevolence, Charity, Beneficence to all Men, out of Conſcience to God, as thou wilt anſwer it before his Judgment-ſeat. Whatever thou wouldſt have others to do to thee, do thou to them; what thou wouldſt not have them to do to thee, do not to them. Make their caſe thine, and act toward them as thy ſelf. Do good to all, but oſpecially the Houſhold of Faith. Seek their Temporal, Spiritual and Eternal Welfare, as thine own; and do not think to patronize thy regardleſſneſs of them, by a careleſs ſluggiſh unconcernedneſs in thine own neareſt concerns; but elevate thine affectionate care for thy ſelf to the utmoſt degree of Perfection, on purpoſe, that according to the ſecond great Command, thou mayſt have a more excellent meaſure and rule, whereby to ſquare thy affectionate regard of others.
But 'tis not enough, O my Soul, to partake of a Moral, thou muſt aſpire after a Divine Nature, as well as eſcape, or fly from the Corruption in the World in Luſt, or Concupiſcence, 2 Pet 2.4. To love thy ſelf into Sobriety or Prudent ſelf Government, to cloath thy ſelf with a Robe of Righteouſneſs and Mercy in thy dealings with Men, is not enough, is not the full and adequate Doctrine and Duty taught by the Grace of God which brings Salvation, Titus 2.11. There muſt be ſuperadded not only a denying Ʋngodlineſs ſo as to crucifie it; but a living Godly, leading a Religious Life towards God in Love, Faith, Fear, Honour, Univerſal Acknowledgment, out of Conſcience. For what Conſcience in dealing well with Men, and ill with God? that is with the Subjects fairly, and not with the Soveraign? What Conſcience in breaking the firſt Article betwixt God and Man, which is to give him the ſole command in his Houſe, thy Heart that living Temple, which is the ſum of the Firſt Commandment? What Conſcience to dwell in his Houſe and pay him no Rent? No external Acknowledgment and Worſhip, in Publick, in thy Family, in thy Cloſet? the ſum of the Second Command. What Conſcience whilſt tender of thy own Name to be regardleſs of Gods? forbid in the Third Command. What Conſcience in ſtealing time from God's reſerved part, when he allows thee ſo much beſide? the Fourth Command violated. Be never ſo ſober, juſt, free, kind to Man-ward, if thou reſpect not God, O my Soul, thou haſt no Conſcience. For where there's no Godlineſs, there can be no Conſcience. Oh, make it thy firſt and main buſineſs to approve thy ſelf to God. Thou canſt never be true to thy ſelf or Man if thou be a Traytor to God. Thou haſt no greater aſſiſtance in thy dutifulneſs to Men, than a due regardfulneſs of God. Thou canſt have no better evidence of a due regardfulneſs of God, than thy conſcientious dutifulneſs to Men. Thou forfeit'ſt the reputation of thy Religiouſneſs towards God, if thou be not Righteous towards Man, and of thy Righteouſneſs, if not Religious. Like Hippocrates's Twins, theſe are born and act, and ſicken, and die together. That's the 4th ingredient of the Pſalmiſt's Character; he upheld univerſal Innocency and Integrity of Conſcience.