The Catholic Hierarchy, Chapter 6
CHAP. VI. Concerning the Dominion of Conſcience.
THus far of the nature of Conſcience, next of the Dominion and Regiment, who it is that hath the immediate Rule and Government of it. I ſhall ſhew therefore that the Government of Conſcience is the peculiar prerogative of God alone, and that 'tis Uſurpation for any to enter into that Juriſdiction, and the higheſt preſumption to attempt it, it belonging to none other by right, nor poſſible for any other to attain: There being none able effectually to enjoyn Conſcience to do its duty in making judicial trials of our perſons and actions but God alone: If at any time Satan or humane Authority ſet Conſcience on work, it's in nomine Dei, & ſub praetextu divinae Authoritatis. And all humane Laws conſcientiouſly obeyed; are obeyed for the Lords ſake, ſuch obedience being commanded of God.
§ 2. That it's Gods onelyonly Prerogative to rule in Conſcience, doth appear by many reaſons. 1. God onelyonly knows the Heart and Conſcience, and therefore is onelyonly able to give a Law to it, and rule in it; if the one be his prerogative above men and Angels, the other muſt be alſo. 2. It's in Gods power onelyonly to inflict puniſhment on Conſcience in caſe of tranſgreſſion. Men may puniſh the outward man, but cannot touch the inward man. Conſcience is not within the reach of his ſtroak; and they pretend in vain to a power of Law-making, who cannot execute it on the Subject for whom it is made. 3. The Conſcience is accountable to none but God, it being his immediate Subſtitute in man; he is Creator of it, and he never ſubjected it to any Law but for his ſake; all ſin as ſuch is againſt God, and no trangreſſion of humane Law becomes morally a ſin, but by its relation ſome way or other to Gods Law, by vertue of ſome of his general or particular Precepts or Commiſſions. 4. There is nothing but the moſt univerſal or chiefeſt good or evil can oblige Conſcience to Obedience, or deter from Diſobedience; which none can make us partakers of, or ſufferers under, but God alone. Mens Stipitulations are never more than temporal Rewards and Puniſhments; theſe Conſcience doth not, will not, it's not in the nature of it to ſtoop to them: The concerns of Conſcience are principally fixed on the Spiritual and Eternal Eſtate, which none but the God of Spirits can bereave it of. Again, as God onelyonly can lay down the firſt Rules of Truth and Errour to the Underſtanding, ſo he determines good and evil as a rule of the Will, and limitation of man in his Election, ſuitable to the nature of a free Agent, having an arbitrary Power over the Arbitrium of mans will, as well as over other things: For as he hath created the Will, ſo he hath determinated the Object that is moſt adequate to it, and not onelyonly in genere boni, but in ſpecie moralis boni; Ergo God is the proper and immediate Ruler of the Underſtanding and Will of man in genere morali: Likewiſe no trangreſſion of the Laws of man brings any truely-enlightned Conſcience under guilt without conſulting the Minde and Will of God. A Childes not doing a Parents command, is not a ſin, (as ſuch) neither will it lay the Conſcience under guilt, any farther than it is a tranſgreſſion of Gods Law, i. e. diſobedience to them in thoſe things that God hath enjoyned obedience in. Childrens obedience to Parents is in the Lord, ſo Subjects to Magiſtates; for both Parents and Magiſtrates do ſometimes command ſuch things, that it's a virtue, and not a vice, in Children or Subjects not to obey, ſo that their refuſal be accompanied with all ſubmiſſion, reverence, and modeſty towards their Superiours. No man hath a moral Legiſlative power over another; but all men in reſpect of moral Laws, at leaſt fundamentally underſtood, are liable and ſubject to the ſame King and Governour; and to his Tribunal will every Conſcience appeal before it will lie under true guilt, whatever the judgement of man is: And though men may torment or kill the outward man, and vex the Spirits becauſe of temporal Sufferings, yet the Conſcience will ſtand or fall onelyonly by the Judgement of God. I may adde alſo, upon what authority we receive a truth of a Spiritual nature, ſo as to believe it by the ſame authority onelyonly, ſhall we ſuffer if we diſobey it? but Conſcience believes no ſpiritual truth but upon Gods authority; Ergo it's by his authority onelyonly that we ſhall ſuffer in Conſcience; and this is the reaſon that when men would impoſe their uſurpations, they ſtill bring a blinde along with them, viz. a pretence to God's Authority. Thus the Pope and his imitators in ſpiritual things, as alſo Secular Powers, will endeavour (by caſting a nooſe upon Conſcience as it ſtands in relation unto God) to make it ſerve their politick and carnal ends, by tying men up by Oaths indefinite to all their lawleſs Laws and Conſtitutions in Church and State. Laſtly, by the ſame authority, and no other, by which men ſhall be judged at laſt, by the ſame is Conſcience ruled now. Thoſe that ſhall be judged by the Light of Nature, have God ruling and judging in them by the Light of Nature onelyonly; ſo thoſe that ſhall be judged by the written Law, and by the Goſpel of Jeſus Chriſt.
§ 3. Now leſt there ſhould be any miſtake of our true meaning about this Dominion of Conſcience, let us take notice of a few diſtinctions concerning Conſcience. Conſcience is to be conſidered according to its internal and its external acting. Its internal acting, is its believing, aſſenting, concurring, judging between fact and fact; or, disbelieving, diſſenting, condemning, &c. and theſe are thoſe that are Actus eliciti; and they are not (without doubt) under any humane Law or Power in the world, either to force them where they are not, or to obſtruct them where they are. As men may not preſume to do it by any external compulſion, ſo there is an impoſſibility in the nature of the thing, that it can never be accompliſhed. 'Tis onelyonly God's Prerogative to charge us to believe under a penalty, and the light of Truth carries demonſtration with it to challenge our aſſent, and call forth our underſtanding to a free acting, unleſs we be inveloped in the darkneſs of corrupt nature, or captivated in ſlavery to any Luſts. Neither is it in the power of man to remove this vail; it's God onelyonly by the light of Truth, working by its prevailing evidence, and the mighty operation of the divine Spirit, which way it pleaſeth, that can effect this. Hence he that makes a penal Law, that this or that thing is a truth, and to be believed by me, to be aſſented and conſented unto, and doth endeavour to compel me to ſuch a belief and aſſent by the threats and puniſhments of this Law, doth uſurp a power that was never given unto him by God, neither was ever practicable to effect the end pretended to.
§ 4. Secondly, There are external acts, (Actus imperati) of Conſcience, as profeſſing, ſubſcribing, declaring, doing; but theſe are not properly acts of Conſcience, but from Conſcience, as they ought to be under the Rule and Dominion and direction of Conſcience, and will come to be duely conſidered in this place, whether any man may be thus compelled by any ſubordinate Power; and doubtleſs there is none that can compel a man to act from Conſcience, no more than he can compel him to underſtand or will what he pleaſeth: for though the acts are external, and may be compelled de facto, and in ſome caſes de jure, the principle of good or evil actions, viz. from Conſcience, cannot be compelled: the relation it hath to Conſcience is internal; as if a man be brought and forc'd upon his Knees before an Idol, &c. it is no formal act of Conſcience, for that ſtill reſiſts and oppoſeth the action; though it's improperly called a forcing of Conſcience, when a man is thus forced to an action againſt his Conſcience: Indeed he is forcibly induced through fear, or ſenſe of ſome evil, to do or omit ſomething againſt his light and conviction; and the choice is alſo free, he being attended with ſuch circumſtances; yet it is ſaid to be compelled, becauſe the argument of a Penalty to be incurred upon refuſal, is very ſtrong to reach fleſh, to prevent the ſuffering of which, the Will is carried away to chuſe that as a comparative good, which the enlightned Underſtanding allows not as lawful, nor the Will as abſolutely good; and this is that compulſion of Conſcience which is moſt uſually found in the world. And here it will be enquired whether any Subordinate power can lawfully compel us to ſuch imperate acts? Anſ. 1. I ſay men may make and execute de jure, ſuch a Law as many cannot in conſcience ſubmit unto by way of active obedience, ſo that it be really ſuch as the great Law-giver hath allowed them to make, and it be agreeable to the rules and limits of power committed to their charge, and the reaſon of refuſal be the weakneſs, and ignorance, or prejudice of the Subject, or elſe no Laws could be made or executed in the world; for one or other that ſhould obey, would be pretending Conſcience againſt it: and here the Subject is to ſubmit either actively, if after ſufficient illumination he findes the goodneſs and juſtneſs of the Law-giver. If he doth not, he is to refuſe to act, if he is perſwaded it's utterly unlawful; but if it be doubtfully ſo, he is to ſuſpend his acts till he is better informed, and patiently ſubmit to the Magiſtrates will and pleaſure in the Penalty-execution: but if any Power endeavour to enforce obedience, that no Power enacting may lawfully do, and require us and force us with penalties, it's queſtionleſs very great Uſurpation. We muſt alſo conſider the matter about which this compulſion may be conceived to be. No Magiſtrate may compel to any thing againſt Conſcience, quatenus ſuch, Scil. under the formality and notion of being againſt Conſcience, that were the greateſt Tyranny in the world. Or we may underſtand it of compelling under the notion of Truth, and ſo a Faith muſt be enforced, which no man is capable of accompliſhing this way. Or, Thirdly, under the notion of Duty, not reſpecting how the Conſciences of perſons ſtand affected in relation to it on whom it is urged: And thus the Magiſtrate may compel to the doing of good, or avoiding of evil, by penal Edicts, though accidentally it may be againſt the Conſciences of ſome on whom it is impoſed; for the Magiſtrate being not a competent Judge of mens Conſciences, he cannot make other mens Conſciences the rule of his Laws and Executions, but the will of the Lord, whoſe Miniſters he is, and the good of the Commonweal that is committed to his truſt. The Magiſtrate is not to command or forbid any thing under the formality of being with or againſt Conſcience; but he ſuppoſing that the Conſciences of his Subjects are convinced, being ſufficiently pre-informed, may command any thing to be done or forborn, according to that latitude of Rule and Government which he hath received from the Lord whoſe Miniſter he is; for the right knowledge whereof, he ought ſincerely and impartially to conſult the Word of God and his own Conſcience, and ſo to take the meaſures of his own Duty and Actions: Neither is his Conſcience the Standard to his Subjects; for every one muſt give an account of himſelf to God; the Magiſtrate for himſelf, as a Magiſtrate; and the Subject for himſelf, as ſuch; and therefore the Conſcience of the Magiſtrate doth not binde the Subject to active obedience, though his relation to him as ſuch bindes him to Subjection, which is abundantly ſhewed in his quiet and peaceable ſubmitting himſelf to the Law-penalty, if he cannot ſatisfie himſelf that the Magiſtrate acts in his place according to the revealed Minde and Will of God in ſuch caſes provided; which caſes alſo are always to be of a civil and politick nature, for here he hath power compulſory of the outward man mandatory, or prohibitory though the Conſcience of the Subject is or may be pretended to be againſt it.
§ 5. And now that all cauſe of exception may be removed on all hands, it will be requiſite more explicitely to ſhew how far a Chriſtians Conſcience hath to do with humane Authority; and we grant that humane Authority in civil and politick affairs is an Ordinance of God. 2. That if the Law be juſt and equitable, a Chriſtian is bound in Conſcience to yield poſitive active obedience, not onelyonly for wrath, i. e. fear of threat and puniſhment, but for Conſcience ſake, becauſe the Law of God obligeth us to obedience to all the juſt Laws of men, civil Government being his appointment as much as Oeconomical; but it's not mans Law that nextly and immediately bindes Conſcience to obedience, but Gods, and mans Law bindes onelyonly by vertue of, and for the ſake of Gods. Hence a man that breaks the juſt Laws of man, ſins againſt God, and, eo nomine, wrongs his Conſcience. As on the other hand, he that obeys an unjuſt Law of man, i. e. a Law no way warrantable by the revealed will of God, breaks Gods Law; and if his Conſcience tell him ſo, he ſins againſt his Conſcience, which always aggravates any ſin againſt God. Hence, if at any time he hath to do with any ſuch Law, he ought rather to run the hazard of mans diſpleaſure than Gods. God is to be obeyed rather than man, if one muſt be diſobeyed; and obeying God indemnifies Conſcience from the guilt of ſin in our diſobeying of man in the ſame act. So if a Law of man lies before us, which we doubt concerning the lawfulneſs of, we are here at leaſt to ſuſpend active obedience while we ſeek for further information; for whether the thing in it ſelf be ſin or no, it's not ſo much to us at preſent, as whether we are ſatisfied of the nature of it, and know what it is by the light of Truth ſhining in our Hearts: it will amount to ſin in us to do a doubtful action, if the Apoſtles Doctrine be true: But if the Precepts of men be found upon the beſt examination to be contrary to God's, a Chriſtian's Conſcience is the moſt certainly diſobliged, his duty lies plain before him. God's Law is to be obſerved; and hence it is that ſome can joyfully ſuffer all wrongs from the hands of men in the caſe of refuſal of active obedience unto their Laws, becauſe they are perſwaded either from a truely-enlightned Conſcience, or from an erring; (which is binding as to preſent action; for a man muſt walk by that light he hath, or by none at all) that ſuch refuſal of active Obedience, and the ſufferings of theirs, is agreeable to the revealed minde of God, and therefore moſt juſtifiable at God's and Man's Tribunal.
§ 6. Here will fall in a great enquiry, That although it be true that all Humane Power, both Legiſlative and Executive, be limited by a ſuperiour Power, yet there's but few that have the felicity of keeping within preſcribed bounds, or having ſuch Subjects that will not be excepting againſt the Laws of their Superiours, as not agreable to God's Laws; and this they will make the Plea for their diſobedience. Both Superiours and Inferiours will plead Conſcience, though never ſo unrighteouſly: what ſhould be done in this caſe? Unto this Allegation many things may be ſaid; for it's ſufficiently known, that though every Law primarily requires active Obedience, yet upon a Tranſgreſſion it is ſatisfied with the due execution of the Penalty; but for the future expects active Obedience: and a reiterated refuſal of Obedience, the Law looks upon as preſumptuous; and is really ſo, if this continuation at enmity with the Law be voluntary, and deliberate, after ſufficient Information and Conviction; And if this refuſal be conjoyn'd with reſiſtance, it is no better than Rebellion, which we explode as unwarrantable for a Chriſtian. About Preſumption we diſtinguiſh, there is that which is really ſo, and that which is onelyonly called ſo by an unjuſt Law and miſtaking Judge. Perſiſting in refuſal of obedience after conviction of our duty, is preſumption, and a ſin againſt God, whoever the Law-maker is. But if ſuch perſiſtance be juſtified by the light of God's Law in Conſcience, it is not a preſumptuous ſin, or any ſin at all againſt God, however man may term it a preſumptuous breach of his Law: for a conſcientious Chriſtian can no more obey an unrighteous Law after ſuffering than before.
§ 7. In all caſes of voluntary deliberate refuſal of active Obedience to a Law, there is, and muſt needs be, a wrong done to the Law-giver or Subject. To the Law-giver, if his Power, Law, and Ends be good, and they not anſwered; for the firſt end of every Law is, and ought to be active Obedience, as beforeſaid; the Law of God firſt obliging us ſo to the juſt Laws of man; and the end of the execution of puniſhment is for the reducing the ſufferers to active Obedience, and the exemplary reſtraint of others from Diſobedience. Hence it follows, that a deliberate, reſolved, and conſtant undergoing of Suffering in this way of refuſal, is a practical charging the Magiſtrate with the higheſt Uſurpation and Tyranny in impoſing Laws of that nature; and therefore the greateſt diſparaging teſtimony born againſt his Law, a great reputation (in the judgement of the world) to the Cauſe pleaded for, let it be truth or errour, and the moſt exemplary diſappointment of the Magiſtrates Law-making ends, whereby others are greatly emboldened to the ſame kind of refuſal.
§ 8. In all caſes where Magiſtrates abuſe their Power, they do a wrong to the ſupream Judge, in going beyond his Commiſſion, and intrenching on his Prerogative, and do apparent injury to the Subject. 1. In that an inferiour ſubordinate Law-giver hath bereaved him by a Law of thoſe juſt Liberties and Priviledges granted to him by the Charter of his ſupream Law-giver. 2. In afflicting and grieving his Subject, by impoſing an unjuſt Law, and cauſing him to ſuffer by it, when he pleads exemption by a Law in full force, and a diſcharge from a higher Court, and is praiſeworthy for the ſaid refuſal, not to be condemned, no nor reproached as an evil doer, or preſumptuous for his permanency in non-obedience. 3. In laying his Subject under a neceſſity of continued and reiterated ſufferings, he being obliged in Conſcience (or elſe to anſwer the default at a higher Tribunal) conſtantly to perſiſt in his refuſal to yield ſuch Obedience, though he is to paſs under renewed and reiterated penalties; for a man to return to obedience after a deliberate ſuffering, is a viſible practical condemnation of himſelf for his former refuſal, which would greatly reflect on his honour both as a man or a Chriſtian, unleſs by the acceſs of further light he findes his Conſcience did erre, and ſo be convinced of his duty; then it becomes him both as a man and Chriſtian to retract: Humanum eſt errare, beluinum in errore perſiſtere.
§ 9. Now ſeeing ſuch inevitable wrong lights ſomewhere in caſes of theſe deliberate refuſals, it will be enquired who or what muſt determine to the ſatisfaction of each party, both ſtanding highly on their Juſtification? To which I anſwer, An actual reconciliation is utterly impoſſible, rebus ſic ſtantibus, becauſe it will be as the greater overſwaying earthly power will have it (Deo permittente) on the commanding part; his Will will carry it; Sic volo, Sic jubeo, &c. and the Subject is liable to errour on his part, in Raſhneſs, Stubbornneſs, Wilfulneſs, Singularity, &c. But if both parties do (notwithſtanding all Imperfections and Frailties attending) endeavour to approve themſelves to the King of Kings, there is a determination which to each party muſt ſatisfactorily binde, and is thus manifeſt. 1. Both are bound to the ſupream Law-giver; the one to make juſt and equal Laws, and righteouſly to diſtribute them; the other to a free deliberate active obedience thereunto; both or either of which failing in their duty, ſhall be judged by the ſupream Law-giver according to the reſpective Laws whereby they are bound to the ſaid duties. 2. So long as darkneſs and corruption attends the mindes of men, there will be different apprehenſions concerning the Duties and Practices they are to walk in, according to the degrees of Light received; there will never be a perfect agreement; neither is any one mans Conſcience a Standard to another to walk by, no further than there is a concurrent emanation of convincing light from the truth to both; the Conſcience of the Magiſtrate, as ſuch, is no binding rule to the Subject, neither ought the Conſcience of the Subject to be ſwallowed up in the Magiſtrates, and thereby ſeduced to an implicite Faith. Every man is to ſee with his own Eyes, to believe with his own Faith, and act to the ſatisfaction of his own Conſcience, uſing all means for the right information of his own Minde and Underſtanding in the Will of God for his walking. Whatever men ſay of a Publick Conſcience, and that commands of Superiours are enough to indemnifie Inferiours in all active Obedience thereto, though the Laws be evil: The Word of God knows no ſuch thing, neither will any man that is acquainted with conſcientious walking in the approvement of himſelf to God in all his ways and actions, ever give credence to any of thoſe wilde aſſertions; neither did I ever ſee any probable Argument produced to enforce thoſe Sentiments on the mindes of rational men, much leſs on ſuch as have their Senſes exerciſed in the knowledge of Truth. 4. Hence it will follow, that the preſent Conſcience or practical Underſtanding impartially fixed, muſt be the onelyonly Expoſitor of Law and Duty, by which every one is bound to walk in his reſpective place that God hath ſet him in, whether Magiſtrate or Subject: whether a man be in a publick or private capacity, he is to be accountable to God for all his abſolute and relative duties, he ſhall not be judged for either of them by another mans Conſcience. The Spirit of a man is the Candle of the Lord, &c. to this determination muſt the Law-giver ſtand as to the righteouſneſs or unrighteouſneſs of his Law, and the Subject as to his active or paſſive obedience: And here we ſpeak not by what meaſures Children in nonage and Fools are from infirmity of nature neceſſitated to walk, but of ſuch as have the due uſe of reaſon and underſtanding; neither can it be helped if ſome men will ſurrender themſelves and Conſciences (from ſlothfulneſs, intereſt, or flattery) to be ſlaves to men, they ſhall ſufficiently ſmart for it here, and ſeverely anſwer for it hereafter. But if any plead that men of Reaſon, Ʋnderſtanding, Judgement, and Conſcience, ought to quit and abandon all light and dominion of their own Conſciences, (being inferiours) and be at the diſpoſition wholly of their Superiours; this we ſay can have no ground in Nature, Politicks, or Beligion. It's juſt as if all Subjects were bound to pluck out their Eyes, and ſee onelyonly by their Governour's. A Childe is to obey his Parent, but it is in the Lord; he is not bound to obey him in unlawful things, and ſo a Servant his Maſter: If ſuch obey their Superiours in ſuch things as the Law of God makes unlawful, in ſo doing they muſt needs diſobey God. Now it's moſt abſurd to think that Gods Law ſhould require it's own violation; if this Command (Children, obey your Parents) be taken without limitation, and the Parent commands the Childe to commit Idolatry, or to ſteal, and the Childe by that Precept is bound to active Obedience, then God's Law here overthrows it ſelf: for by yielding obedience to one Precept, another is neceſſarily broken. We have Joſeph's practice (and Scriptural commands) to juſtifie us in this Aſſertion.
§ 10. Moreover, if Conſcience is to determine (after the beſt information that we can have) between God and us, as to our preſent practice, much more it's to determine in caſe of difference between ſubordinate Law-givers and us. Though there is a difference in the determination, (i. e. ſuppoſing it be God's Law, his authority to make ſuch a Law is not to be diſputed by the Creature; but the queſtion or caſe of Conſcience is uſually of the meaning and extent of his Law, as to variety of practices referrable thereunto: Whereas mans Law may be diſputed whether he may de jure, by vertue of his Commiſſion from God, make and enjoyn ſuch a Law) yet the Argument holds good, that in caſe of doubt about Practice, and Diſpute between God and us, if he requires us to be regulated by the verdict of Conſcience enlightned from the Word, then much more in ſuch caſes of diſpute betwixt Man and us: and although we may ſin in obeying the dictates of an erring Conſcience, (guided by the Word of God miſunderſtood) yet that ſin (after our impartial endeavours for information) appearing to us to be a Duty, (though it ceaſeth not therefore to be a ſin in its own nature) it would be a greater ſin in us to diſobey the Dictate of the preſent ſuppoſedly enlightned Conſcience, becauſe it muſt be ranked amongſt the ſins againſt Light and Conſcience; whereas now the Act is but a ſin of ignorance at worſt. Again, God will at the laſt day judge according to the Verdict of Conſcience rightly informed; If our Conſcience condemn us, God is greater, &c. 1 Joh. Rom. 2. but if our preſent Conſcience be erring, either as to the meaning or nature of the Law or Fact, and brings in an impartial Verdict, according as it hath found upon its beſt information and enquiry; but not true (as after it appears) according to Law or Fact, its duty is to paſs again and again upon the ſame inquiſition, till it ſpeaks as it ſhall ſpeak before Gods Tribunal: So the laſt Verdict (called preſent Conſcience) ſtands binding to us, till by further light in the Law, or Evidence concerning the Fact, another be brought more agreeable to Law and Juſtice. And if upon frequent and impartial ſearch, the ſame return be ſtill made (after earneſt and ſincere ſeeking of God to diſcover our errours) it is a great confirmation unto us that it's truth that hath been ſpoken; and that we ſhould greatly ſin againſt God to ſwerve from it, what ever the Edicts and Precepts of men ſay to the contrary. Magna eſt vis Conſcientiae in utramque partem, ut neque timeant qui nihil commiſerint, & poenam ſemper ante occulos verſari putent qui peccaverint. Cic. Orat. pro Milione.
foreign. Sophoc. Egregious Witneſs Conſcience To good men is of innocence.