The Catholic Hierarchy, Chapter 12
CHAP. XII. Wherein is handled the firſt Queſtion about things Indifferent.
§ 1. THe firſt Queſtion that ſeems to offer itſelf to be ſo, this: Whether a religious Goſpel-Indifferency ceaſeth to be ſo, when any thing is poſitively and certainly determined as to its practice by humane Authority? Explic. By religious Goſpel-Indifferency, I underſtand, as before-mentioned, any thing or action which circumſtantially adheres to the worſhip of God, and may be uſed or omitted, or altered, according to the judgement of diſcretion, without any tranſgreſſion of a Law of Chriſt. Again, this we acknowledge, that a thing may be determined as to Expediency by a Society or lawful Authority, but not impoſed as a ſtanding and binding Law; but being commended by the judgements of many concurring, conſcientiouſly ſtudious of the minde and will of Chriſt, it carries the more force along with it, to perſwade us at leaſt to preſent acting, till by further and greater illumination we be otherwiſe enclined. Nay if any thing be determined by thoſe that are in Authority, and propoſed as their judgement according to their light received, not Magiſterially, but Demonſtratively onelyonly, convincingly enough as to the Expediency, it carries with it the force of a Law unto Conſcience, (not of man, but of God, man being a Candleſtick onelyonly to hold forth that Light) and binds it to ſubmit thereunto. But otherwiſe, if men in authority undertake to make a Law that a thing (in itſelf by Chriſt's Law left indifferent, i. e. to Chriſtian diſcretion to do or omit) ſhall become an abſolute neceſſity, or an expedient neceſſity, and according to their will and opinion binde Inferiours to the conſtant practice of this by a penalty: We affirm that a religious Goſpel-Indifferency (notwithſtanding all humane authoritative determination changing it into a neceſſity) keeps its priſtine indifferency, and remains the ſame to a Chriſtians Conſcience and practice. The proof of this Aſſertion follows.
§ 2. Argum. 1. That power that can change Goſpel-indifferencies into Goſpel-neceſſities, can alſo change Goſpel-neceſſities into Goſpel-indifferencies; but no humane Authority can do the latter, Ergo, not the former. The Aſſumption will not be denied by any Proteſtant, it being a preſumption of the higheſt nature for humane authority to pretend to diſpenſe with or null any of the manifeſt Laws of Chriſt. The Major is alſo evident, becauſe it muſt be an Authority of the ſame kind to make and null a Law of the ſame kinde. If it be ſaid a humane authority may make a Goſpel-indifferency neceſſary, genere civili, the Anſwer falls far ſhort; for we ſpeak of Laws of the ſame kinde, having equal force upon the Conſcience: for a Civil Legiſlative power can as well null any Law of a civil nature onelyonly, as it can make it. So if Man could make Moral Laws, he might as well null thoſe which he hath made, or diſpenſe with them at pleaſure, as make new. We muſt always allow a Soveraign Prerogative to Supream Law-givers in any kinde, as to promulgate, ſo to abrogate or diſpenſe with their own Laws at pleaſure: And if it be ſaid that thoſe Laws that man makes concerning the uſe of indifferent things neceſſarily in the worſhip of Chriſt, are civil onelyonly, being onelyonly for decency, ſplendor, &c. I reply, that it cannot be ſo in the nature of them; for it's the reſpect and end of a thing that gives it its ſpecifical denomination, when it hath none ſuch abſolutely conſidered: that which reſpects and aims at the Goſpel-worſhip of Chriſt, or pretends ſo to do, is or ſhould be a part of Goſpel-worſhip; as kneeling is an indifferent geſture; a man may kneel when he doth other things beſides acts of Worſhip; or according to the Law of Chriſt, he may kneel, or ſtand, or uſe another poſture in Worſhip: but when this or that geſture is applied to Worſhip, it's religious by its Reſpect, Ʋſe, and Application, but ſtill of an indifferent nature under the Laws of Chriſt, till by ſome binding Law the Conſcience becomes bound up to the uſe of it in this or that part of Worſhip. Now he that undertakes to binde Conſcience here, undertakes to make a Law for Chriſt, and to entrench upon the Prerogative of Chriſt; and that ſuch that make ſuch Laws do claim ſuch a power, is manifeſt, becauſe they make obedience unto ſuch Laws neceſſary by vertue of a Law of Chriſt: Let every Soul be ſubject to the higher power.
§ 3. Argum. 2. If the nature of an Evangelical Indifferency may be changed jure into an Evangelical Neceſſity, by any power beſides Chriſt's, then it muſt be becauſe it's Evangelically evil, that this or that ſhould remain indifferent which Chriſt hath left ſo, or at leaſt better for the honour of Chriſt and good of his Church, that it ſhould become a neceſſity (i. e. a commanded good, or prohibited evil) than indifferent, to be diſpoſed by the diſcretion of particular Churches or Chriſtians; but there is no true Evangelical Indifferency that hath ſuch a reaſon for the change of it into a neceſſity; Ergo, the reaſon of the Conſequence is this, becauſe whatever is altered by a Law, is ſuppoſed to be altered from worſe to better; and what is altered by a Law for Chriſt, is or ſhould be made more for the honour of Chriſt, and therefore far better than it was before; but it cannot be ſuppoſed that any thing that this wiſe Law-giver left in indifferency to practice or omit according to the judgement of diſcretion, ſhould be more for his honour if it were converted into a neceſſity by a Law; for to ſay ſo, would be a high impeachment of the wiſdom of Chriſt, as it is of a King and Parliament, when any ſhall preſume to ſay they have not made ſuch Laws as are needfull to be made, and have left the Subject under a greater liberty than is for the good of the Commonweal, or honour of the King. To ſay ſo therefore is to make a double reflexion on Chriſt: Firſt, that his Laws are defective, for the accompliſhment of thoſe ends for which they were eſtabliſhed, and that the liberty granted by Chriſt unto his Members in indifferent things, hath too great a latitude to be conſiſtent with that exact Goſpel-worſhip which we ſhould honour him by. And if it be ſaid, that which Chriſt hath left Evangelically indifferent may be unlawful in reſpect of other Laws, we ſay that all the true jus of other Laws muſt be founded on Chriſt's; and his is precedaneous to them, and therefore as in authority or practice it muſt take place before them. Moreover, we ſay, that Chriſt hath not ſo ill eſtabliſh'd Chriſtian Liberty, as that thereby we are licenſed to violate any natural or civil bonds.
§ 4. Argum. 3. That which by Chriſt's Authority hath left a Character impreſſed on Conſcience, cannot by any authority be abrogated without removal of the ſaid Character; but as the Laws, ſo the Liberty by Goſpel-Charter granted by Chriſt, hath left ſuch a Character impreſſed indelibly on Conſcience, as cannot be removed by any other Authority, therefore Chriſtian Liberty cannot be abrogated, &c. Ergo, a religious Goſpel-indifferency cannot be taken away or ceaſe by the determination of mere humane Laws, i. e. humane Laws that Chriſt never allowed man to make.
The Major is evident, in that the revealed will of Chriſt when it ſhines into the Heart, fixeth an indelible Character upon Conſcience for poſitive obedience, and alſo as to indifferent things; for he that knows not one by the Law, knows not the other, nor can never tell when he ſins and when he doth not; and if any other could interpoſe and make a Law to binde Conſcience ſub reatu by new Laws, or releaſe it by new Liberties, either to make additional Characters, or delete Chriſt's, Chriſtian Religion would thereby become no other than an undigeſted heap of uncertainties and confuſions. It's true, Characters are ſometimes removed from Conſcience, as in caſe of Juſtification of a ſinner by Faith, Rom. 8. So in caſe of an erring Conſcience (that ſuppoſeth this to be his duty which is not, and that to be indifferent which is neceſſary) all errour when entertained lays hold on Conſcience, Sub pretextu authoritatis Chriſti, under pretence of Chriſt's Authority, and ſo do all humane uſurping Laws when they inſinuate themſelves into Conſcience; and when by a farther informing light the Errour is expell'd from the Judgement and Conſcience, the Authority of Chriſt ſtill remains expelling the Errour, which no humane Authority could do, and confirming the Conſcience in the truth, maugre all the oppoſition of any humane power: ſo that where Chriſt's Laws hath once prevailed ſo far as to fix his Authority there, it was never known (that whatever mens external practices or conformities were) that ever any humane Power could blot out the Characters of Chriſt's Prerogative, and fix another Supremacy there; for that is but a vain Law in religious things, that cannot binde the Conſcience under guilt in caſe of tranſgreſſion: I ſhall never conſcienciouſly obſerve that for my duty, the omiſſion of which doth not make me conſcious of a Tranſgreſſion. As to the Minor, that the liberty granted by Chriſt leaves a Character on Conſcience as well as the Laws of Chriſt, is manifeſt, 1. Becauſe Laws are the bounds of Liberty, and one muſt be known and acted as well as the other, as hath been ſaid before. 2. Becauſe their liberty is not the will of Chriſt permiſſive onelyonly, but in ſome meaſure poſitive, i. e. ſo far as that Chriſtians ſhould walk in it, he having but two paths to walk in, either of poſitively directed obedience, or of Liberty under the judgement of diſcretion regulated by the rules of Expediency; for either in matters of inſtituted Worſhip Chriſt hath by a manifeſtation of his will, limited our Actions, or hath left Churches and Chriſtians in the Equilibrio of indifferency to poiſe themſelves according to Conſcience-Light, as to reſpective differencies by diſcretion, and where there is an equality to chuſe pro arbitrio: Again, our aſſurance is not onelyonly negative, but poſitive, that it is Chriſt's will that we ſhould maintain our liberty in Religious things, ſtand faſt in that liberty, &c. Neither can any take it away without intruding on Conſcience, and entrenching on his Prerogative, which for us to yield to were to betray his Crown and Scepter.
§ 5. Argum. 4. Hence if ſuch a Law be made, it ought not to be made, and ergo the thing retains its priſtine nature. That Law which directly puts a Chriſtian on a neceſſity of ſinning in obeying it, ought not to be made; but a Law that changeth Evangelical indifferencies into neceſſities, doth directly put a Chriſtian on a neceſſity of ſinning if he obeys; Ergo, it ought not to be made. That the Major may be univerſal, I adde, (directly) becauſe many good Laws are occaſions of ſinning indirectly; but when the Law requires ſuch obedience which in the very ſubſtance of it is ſin, becauſe the obedience directly aimed at is the formal reaſon of the Law, ſuch a Law muſt needs be ſinful. The Minor doth thus appear; becauſe ſuch a Law bindes a man up in obedience to it in one part of the indifferency, whereas that part of the indifferency, according to Chriſt's rules of expediency, may be unlawful to be done, and then the humane Law and the ſaid Goſpel-rules contradict one another, Expediencies altering daily as to attending circumſtances; at ſome times it's lawful to do that thing which at another is more agreeable to the honour of Chriſt, and the good of others to avoid. As for Example: the Apoſtle reckons eating this or that ſort of meat ſold in the Shambles as an indifferent thing, if I make no queſtion whether it be Jewiſhly unclean, or Heatheniſhly ſacrificed to Idols, 1 Cor. 10.25, 27. but if I am enforced by Law to eat this or that ſort of meat in the Shambles which is ſacrificed to Idols, I am neceſſitated to ſin, 1. I offend my Brother that makes this Law, confirming him in ſin, for the ſake of whoſe Conſcience I ought by the Apoſtles rule to forbear this act, and therefore ſin againſt all ſuch as idolatrouſly eat this ſacrificed meat: For what can tell me more plainly than the Law, that this or that meat by its attending circumſtances is ſacrificed to Idols? Again, to hear the Word of God in this or that publick place, is an indifferency; to hear it to my edification as near as poſſible, is the Precept of Chriſt: but if I am bound by a humane Law to hear always in my own Pariſh-church, and thereby debarred of my liberty of hearing there where I can moſt profit; and whereas the Pariſh-miniſter is ignorant, prophane, or erroneous, whom to hear conſtantly muſt needs be ſin to me, I am certainly by this Law put upon a neceſſity of ſinning in yielding active obedience unto it.
§ 6. Argum. 5. That Indifferencies of a Goſpel-nature cannot be alter'd from their nature by any ſubſequent Law of man, thus appears. To change religious Indifferencies into Neceſſities, is to make a Law for Chriſts Worſhip that Chriſt never made, nor gave any man power to make; but none may make a Law for the Worſhip of Chriſt which he never made, nor impowred any to make; Ergo, the Major is without doubt: if the indifferency confeſſed be in the worſhip of God, then when it's by any Law made neceſſary, it's ſtill in the worſhip of God, and being appointed ſo by a Law, becomes inſtituted Worſhip: by a Law which Chriſt never made. The Minor appears, in that none may do ſo, i. e. inſtitute Worſhip or circumſtances of Worſhip by a Law that is not Chriſt's. 1. It's his Prerogative to exerciſe a Legiſlative power in his Church. 2. Chriſt knows onelyonly how he will be worſhipped, and it muſt be founded on his revealed will, which is our Law. 3. None might adde to his Laws under the Old Teſtament, Deut. 4.1, 2. much leſs under the New, where there is leſs of Ceremony and Circumſtances, Rev.