The Catholic Hierarchy, Chapter 18
CHAP. XVIII. Of a Chriſtians Duty, in caſe of Humane Laws, in matters religiouſly indifferent.
§ 1. IN the next place it will be neceſſary to ſpeak ſomething to a Queſtion of no leſs weight than any of the former: for (it is ſaid) that though it ſhould be granted that no power, Civil or Eccleſiaſtical, can (Jure) convert Indifferencies in Worſhip into Neceſſities by a Law, yet it's inquired in caſe any humane power aſſume ſo much to it ſelf as to do it, Whether a Chriſtian is not bound to yield active Obedience unto the ſaid Laws? and thoſe that affirm it, produce theſe Reaſons to enforce it. 1. That every one is bound to be ſubject to their higheſt powers, Rom. 13.1. 2. That ſuch Laws are not contrary to the Law of God, becauſe God hath nowhere declared himſelf againſt one part of the indifferency more than the other, but hath left both equally lawful to be practiſed, according to the rules of diſcretion. And why may not the Church or Magiſtrates diſcretion binde a Chriſtian to obedience to his command, as moſt expedient, the Church or Magiſtrate being better able to judge of an Expediency than a private Chriſtian? 3. Becauſe if in a thing indifferent the leaſt offenſive part is to be choſen, then ſurely that part which fulfils the Civil or Eccleſiaſtick Law; for it is a greater offence to offend the Church or Magiſtrate, or both, than to offend a particular private Chriſtian, or company of Diſſenters.
To the firſt I anſwer, by way of conceſſion, That a Chriſtian is ſo bound, as Rom. 13.1. but 1. That place is to be underſtood of Civil, not Eccleſiaſtical powers, as the Context ſhews. 2. If it be underſtood of Church-power, as that Heb. 13.17. Obey them that have the rule over you; it's to be underſtood of ſuch, as Chriſt hath conſtituted Church-Officers; and of obedience to an Executive power committed to them, not of a new aſſumed Legiſlative power never allowed to them.
To the ſecond I anſwer, That ſuch Laws are contrary to the Word of God: for 1. Eſſentially they are contrary to the Word of God, it being the revealed Will of God in his Word, that they ſhould be Indifferencies, and remain ſo, not to be made otherwiſe by any Law: for where God hath granted a Liberty or Latitude in the uſe of any Creatures or Actions, there to make or preſcribe a religious limitation by a Law, is abſolutely unlawful, and directly contrary to the Word of God. It's expreſs, Acts 10.13, 14, 15. where Peter, though an Apoſtle, is charged not to put a religious difference where God hath ſanctified things to our indifferent uſe, much leſs might he prohibit the Church from uſing any Creatures or Actions made by God indifferently holy: therefore when it's the Will of God that a thing be indifferent, it's contrary to the Will of God to impoſe it as neceſſary. 2. Such Laws are circumſtantially evil, and contrary to the Word of God, becauſe they hinder the free uſe of Chriſtian diſcretion where God would have it uſed; and Ergo, hindreth an Ordinance of Chriſt. Beſides, it neceſſarily obligeth to evil, whenas the expedient good is found by a Chriſtian to be in that part of the Indifferency which is contrary to the humane Law: And beſides, God having left both parts of the Indifferency equally lawful, and declared it ſo in his Word, for man to declare one part unlawful, or make it ſo by a Law, is to make a Declaration or Law contrary to the Word of God. Neither may a Magiſtrate or Churches judgment binde a Chriſtian to practiſe any further than it brings light with it: for no man muſt walk by an implicit Faith in the matters that concern the Worſhip of God, and the ſalvation of his Soul.
To the third Alleg. That part which fulfils the Civil or Eccleſiaſtical Law for Will-worſhip, is not the leaſt offending part, but the moſt: for the yielding free active obedience to ſinful Laws, is not onelyonly ſin in the perſon obeying, but the higheſt degree of ſcandal to the perſon commanding, it being the edification of him in ſin; whereas the refuſal of active obedience in ſuch a caſe, is no offence given, but onelyonly a juſt croſs of a perverſe Judgment and Will. Again, if any action be ſuch as will offend juſtly the leaſt of Chriſt's members, it muſt needs be contrary to Gods Word; and I may not grievingly or ſinningly offend any of Gods children, that I may gratifie and fulfil the Will of man. We muſt rather chuſe that part of the Indifferency which a weak Chriſtian thinks (according to his beſt light from Gods Word) to be neceſſary, than the other part which Authority lays a ſtreſs upon by a Law: the reaſon is, becauſe I muſt chuſe Suffering rather than indanger any Souls ſalvation in the leaſt. Now if I refuſe active obedience to the Magiſtrate, I onelyonly run the hazard of ſuffering the penalty, which it may be I can bear and comfort my ſelf under; but in caſe I wrong a Soul by my action, I cannot free my ſelf from ſin, and am an occaſion of anothers too; either of which are, but eſpecially both, much heavier than the greateſt ſuffering. Laſtly, if I ſuffer the penalty of the Law, I both fulfil the Law, and ſave my Brother too.
§ 2. Now theſe Obſtacles being removed out of the way, I proceed to determine the Queſtion. That in caſe any power Civil or Eccleſiaſtical, ſhall preſume ſo far as to enact Laws in the concerns of divine Worſhip, ſo as to change Chriſtian Indifferencies into Neceſſities, that a Chriſtian is bound to refuſe, active obedience thereto. And I make good this Aſſertion by the following Arguments.
1. To yield ſuch obedience, is to ſerve God according to the Will of Man; but no Chriſtian ought to ſerve God according to the Will of Man: Ergo. The Major is true, becauſe it's a ſerving God in ſuch a way as is deviſed by man, and to the obeyer is no other; for he in his conſcience believes ſo, that it is not the Will of God. The Minor is true, becauſe that is Will-Worſhip which is the product only of mans Will, Gods Will being the onelyonly Rule of Gods Worſhip; and we muſt be ſure of that Will in all matters of his Worſhip, or elſe we bring vain Oblations unto him.
2. The goodneſs determined by a humane Law for the ſake of mans Will, ought not to be preferred before the goodneſs of Expediency determined (by a conſcientious Chriſtian) for God's ſake; for ſuch a goodneſs of Expediency is approved of by God, and the contrary to it pro hic & nunc, is unlawful: therefore from this cloſing with ſuch goodneſs, we are not to be deterred by any humane Law; for an expediently neceſſary action, according to the Will of God, is to be of far more force with us, than an action made abſolutely neceſſary by the Will of man. Yea, it is to do a thing contrary to the Will of God, to do that as neceſſary which God hath revealed his Will concerning that we ſhould always do in a way of Indifferency and Expediency, determinable by the judgment of diſcretion: for to do things by way of Neceſſity, and to do by way of Indifferency, is to act by way of Contrariety; and therefore to obey ſuch Laws, is to act contrary to the Will of God.
3. To be brought under the power (i. e. a neceſſity by a Law) of any thing religiouſly indifferent, is unlawful, 1 Cor. 6.12. but to be brought to conſtant active obedience to mans Law, commanding a neceſſary performance of an indifferent action, is to be brought under the power of a thing, i. e. into bondage, i. e. under a Yoke which Chriſt never put us under. Now Chriſt would not have us to make our ſelves ſlaves where he hath made us free.
4. A Chriſtian is to uſe his liberty purchaſed by Chriſt, and to ſtand faſt in it; Ergo, to practiſe it conſtantly, notwithſtanding all enſnaring and embondaging Laws of men, and is bound to uſe his judgment in all his actions; and where there is an Indifferency, to chuſe by the Rules of Expediency, and not walk by an implicite Faith. The wiſe mans eyes are in his head; the fool walketh in darkneſs.
5. Such active obedience is a betraying the Prerogative of Chriſt: for if a Legiſlative power be Chriſt's Prerogative, as hath been proved, then the yielding active obedience to an uſurping Law, is the doing Homage to another Lawgiver in that kind, and giving up the power of the Lord Jeſus. It's like a Subjects introducing the power of a forreign Prince, and doing all that lies in him to ſubvert that Law and Soveraignty to which he is naturally related; and what can be greater Treaſon to any State?
6. If a Chriſtian here obey, it muſt be for Chriſt's ſake, or Conſcience ſake, Rom. 13. It cannot be for Chriſt's ſake, becauſe it robs him of his Prerogative, or betrays it; neither can it be for Conſcience ſake, to embondage it ſelf where Chriſt hath left it free: whatever tends to the captivity or ſlavery of Conſcience, is not for the good of Conſcience; for in this they are not Miniſters to me for good, for the Law tends not to my good in active obedience; which if I ſee, and yet yield, I become a Miniſter of evil to my ſelf.
7. If it be a ſin in the ſupream Powers to command and impoſe their ſaid Laws, it is a ſin in a Chriſtian to obey; at. Ergo. The conſequence is manifeſt, becauſe the moſt formal reaſon of an evil Law, is the evil obedience required. The Minor hath been proved, that ſuch a Law is ſin in Superiours to make: but to confirm the conſequence further, to be a copartner with another in ſin, is ſin; but if the Magiſtrate command, and I obey, I am copartner with him. A thing commanded can be evil but two ways; either materially, or circumſtantially: if it be materially evil, there is no pretence for doing it, whatever humane power command; and if it be circumſtantially, it muſt be in the Commanders uſurping a falſe power, or there is ſome circumſtantial relation pro hic & nunc, that makes it unlawful unto me or another. It may be the thing may be materially lawful, but under both theſe ſorts of circumſtances; it may be unlawful, as that I give away hereby Chriſt's Prerogative, I rob my ſelf of the uſe of my judgment of diſcretion, by which every Chriſtian is to walk, and I (it may be) offend my brother. I do not ſay a man may never do that part of the Indifferency that is commanded by a humane Law; a Chriſtian hath the uſe of his liberty as well after as before a humane Law, and he is to walk by the Rule of Expediency ſtill. When he finds it moſt for Gods glory, and his or anothers edification, he may take that part of the Indifferency which is commanded, ſed non ratione praecepti humani, but from that Expedient or convenient Goodneſs which pro hic & nunc he finds in it. But that obedience which we here declare againſt, is the doing it as a duty conſtantly or conſcientiouſly, ſub paenâ reatus, by virtue of ſuch a Law.
8. A Chriſtian cannot yield the aforeſaid obedience, but he muſt offer violence to his Conſcience, i. e. practically to contradict the dictates and light thereof; for every moral action muſt be approved or reprobated thereby. But he muſt needs know that that which is not commanded, or approved by Chriſt (as indifferent things are, though not commanded by him) in the matters of his Worſhip, (no others approbation being enough to juſtifie my actions, and therefore to ſatisfie my Conſcience) is but Innovation, and therefore vain Worſhip, and Ergo, rejected by Chriſt, and ſinful, Mat. 15.9. Now that which a Chriſtian is perſwaded of to be thus in his own Conſcience, and yet doth, he offers manifeſt violence to his Conſcience in doing.
9. If ſuch Compulſions do by Rules of Expediency neceſſarily require a man to refuſe active obedience, then it's a duty at leaſt ſometimes to refuſe; but Ergo. The Minor is proved beyond all controverſie, from Paul's Doctrine and practice concerning the uſe of Circumciſion, Gal. 2.5. & Coloſſ. 2.19, 20, 21, 22.