White Salt, Chapter 12
CHAP. XII.
WEE have hitherto ſpoken ſomewhat in commendation of Goodneſſe in ſeverall parts of it. The formall reſpect of this goodneſs, as hath been touched, doth lie in obedience of our actions unto God. And in this we have not, as I know of, any diſſenters. All carrie up in true obedience a reſpect to God from whom the commandement of ſervice and worſhip doth come.
But the preſent world ſeems to make it a great queſtion, whether there be any goodneſs accountable in obedience to lawfull authority amongſt men, either in Civill or Eccleſiaſticall things. And they do, in effect, place a goodneſs in inobedience thereunto; ſince they will not allow any degree of goodneſs unto thoſe who will not relinquiſh conformity to former principles. Yea too many have put an high godlineſs in high diſobedience to ſome known laws.
I have been moved to think upon this caſe, and it doth ſomewhat concern me.
Therefore firſt Negatively; where unto we ſhall premiſe ſome cautionary concluſions, to avoid miſpriſion.
1. We do not ſay that there is no goodneſs in any of thoſe who are inobedient to men. Some may be led away in ſimplicity of their hearts, as is ſaid of the people who went with rebellious Abſalom, and followed him. It may be ſome think that thoſe who complied with the preſent turnes, were in this wiſe men; but it is beſt for them to be ſimple, otherwiſe their ſin is the greater.
2. We do not ſay that inobedience to that which is bad, is not good. That which is not good, it is good to decline; underſtanding that which is not good, not of things indifferent, which in themſelves are neither good nor bad, but of that which is unlawfull.
3. We do not put an equality betwixt the laws of God, and the laws of Men: God forbid.
For 1. Humane laws cannot injoyne any new doctrine of faith to be ſubſcribed, or new worſhip to be practiſed: this belongs to the written Word of God; which is the adequate rule of faith and worſhip.
2. Divine laws require intuitive ebedience, as coming from God, who hath authority abſolutely ſupreme; and cannot command any thing bad. Humane laws require but a limited and conditionate obedience; as comming neither from abſolute authority, but ſubordinate to God; and alſo may, though he cannot juſtly, impoſe that which is not right.
Therefore 3. Divine laws binde immediately: but Humane laws binde by mediation of the Divine law; in general, as Matth. 23.2. Rom. 13.1. 1 Pet. 2.13. Heb. 13.17. to name no more.
4. There is no diſtinction of duty by active or paſsive obedience in the laws of God; becauſe the authority is abſolutely abſolute; and the matter morally good, therefore commanded; or good, becauſe commanded by him: but in Humane laws there is uſe thereof; ſo that if in regard of the matter we cannot obey actively; yet in regard of the lawful authority he hath from God, we ſhould obey paſſively, and not reſiſt. Therefore in obedience to Divine laws we look firſt to the Author: in obedience to Humane laws we look firſt at the matter.
5. Divine laws require internal obedience even of external actions; which God can examine and judge; but humane laws are ſatisfied with external obedience; becauſe the Court of man meerly can go no further. Indeed obedience ſhould be given to men heartily: but this comes under the law of God; and is not included in the law of man.
6. Humane laws do more properly binde the perſon. Divine laws do binde the conſcience directly, becauſe we cannot diſſent from the matter of the command; as we cannot but diſſent from ſome laws of men. For the conſcience being intellectual cannot cloſe with that which appeareth to be wrong, and cannot but embrace in its aſſent that which appeareth to be right, as ſutable to the law of God. So that liberty of Conſcience as to Humane laws, is not in regard of it ſelf, infringed by them.
So then, theſe things being premiſed; by virtue of the former texts, it is eaſie to conclude negatively; There is no goodneſs conſiſting in the nature of inobedience, much leſs of diſobedience to the laws of men. And thoſe that pretend to a duty of obedience only to God and Chriſt, and not to man, are not obedient to God and Chriſt. As for that plea of ſome, to follow their conſcience, is good; they follow their conſcience: it is a very weak one; and needs no anſwer, but in courteſie.
This makes it not ſimply good to be inobedient, that herein they follow their Conſcience; which doth not neceſſarily, but by evil accident dictate this to them.
2. To follow conſcience ſimply is not ſimply good, but to follow conſcience regulated by the Law of God; for then St. Paul had done well in perſecuting the Church of Chriſt, according to his conſcience, with Zeal. Thoſe that follow their conſcience erroneous negatively or affirmatively, they do not ſin, in the formality, againſt conſcience, becauſe they do according to it: yet they ſin in the matter againſt the Law of God, which ought to rectifie their conſcience. The erroneous conſcience, as the rule is, does not binde them to do ſo, becauſe it is erroneous; but it bindes them not to do againſt it, becauſe it is conſcience.
Therefore as we ſhould have a quick conſcience to move; ſo ſhould we have an informed conſcience to direct: otherwiſe we may do, as ſome have done, the Divels work in Gods name. That of Tacitus is very conſiderable, Pluraſaepè peccantur dum demeremur, quàm dum offend mus; in thinking to do well we often offend more then in plain offenſes So then there is no urging conſcience for things bad.
Affirmatively now, there is a goodneſs belonging to humane obedience, in the right ſtate of it, firſt if there be authority in him that makes the Law. External power doth not morally ground obedience, which hath relation to due authority. 2. For the matter of the law, it muſt not be contrary to the Law of God, becauſe no man can be bound againſt the Law of God, who is abſolute in his authority, and infallible in his reaſon of Law. 3. In reſpect of the formal motive of this obedience to man; and this ſhould be their love to the Law of God, who hath commanded it as before. So that the principal object in this obedience to man, is God.
Under theſe conditions of obedience to man, what ſhould hinder, but that this obedience ſhould be part of our goodneſs, which we have now ſo great reaſon to commend? And it is included in our obedience to God in the fifth Commandement? And Supreme Governours are reaſonably comprehended under Parents; becauſe they are ſuch ſuperiours to us; becauſe they are as Fathers of the Countrey; and becauſe Kingly government, as Ariſtotle alſo, is rationally grounded in jure paterno.
And therefore if there be any goodneſs in obedience to the precepts of God, then there muſt be goodneſs, pro parte, in this obedience to humane laws. And if thoſe ſins are the greater, and waſting the Conſcience, (as Divines ſay) which have in them moſt dangerous conſequences towards the vaſtation of Societies; then what ſhould be thought of thoſe men that deny all duty of obedience to men, and make it to be a duty to be diſobedient? In Judg. 17.6. it is ſaid, In thoſe days there was no King in Iſrael, but every one did that which was good in his own eyes. Whereby it is inferred that when there was a King, they did what was appointed; and the want of a King then, is ſignified to be the cauſe of corruption of Religion; which might have been reſtrained by him.
Indeed if after the lawful command of a lawful Magiſtrate it were free for us to do what we pleaſed, then not only would there not be any virtue in obedience, but alſo there would not be the nature of obedience conſerved. And therefore although humane laws cannot properly, and in themſelves binde the Conſcience; yet I do not yet ſee (thoſe things being conſidered which are to be conſidered) how the perſon ſhould not be bound in conſcience to obey the law, if the thing be not oppoſite to the law of God; or to ſubmit to his authority, if he be the lawful Magiſtrate.
It is true, Calvin, who had the hap to mould Religion in way of oppoſition to the Romane tyranny, denyes all obligation of conſcience by humane laws, as being contrary to Chriſtian liberty, in his third Book of Inſtitutions, the 19. chapter. Only to avoid ſcandal, he ſays, we ought to abſtain from the uſe of our liberty, in charity to a weak brother. This ſuppoſition of his many embrace; only they adde, that humane laws do alſo binde againſt contempt.
With reſpect to any that differ, me thinks this muſt not ſerve. If they binde only in theſe caſes, what will become of humane laws? To what purpoſe are thoſe Divine precepts of obedience to men? Will not every one ſay, though they do nothing in obedience, they do not contemn the authority? And yet indeed ſome have cruelly contemned it. So that they have not ſtood to their own principles herein. And that binding againſt contempt reſpects authority in things unlawful. Is there no more reſpect to be given to authority in things lawful and convenient?
And if they binde, beſides this, only in caſe of ſcandal; then firſt, put caſe one thinks in his conſcience he is bound in conſcience to be obedient; is he in an error, or not? If he be not; why are not they of the ſame mind? If he be in an error; what will they do towards him? If they do not obey, they offend him: if they do obey, they harden him in his error. 2. If they binde only in caſe of ſcandal, beſides the other caſe before; then even after impoſition of them by lawful authority, they are yet in the ſtate and condition of things indifferent: for even in theſe things charity bindes againſt the uſe of liberty, in point of ſcandal. And ſo we ſhall make nothing of authority, and ſo we ſhall diſanul the Ordinance and Laws of God. 3. Whenſoever they do not obey, they give ſcandal to ſome or other; therefore as towards practice they ſhould always obey. 4. Had they the authority and power in their hands, would they be contented with ſuch obedience? No, they would not be contented: but would have the world know, that their laws are the laws of Chriſt, and whoſoever is not obedient is a rebel to Chriſt.
And therefore though I have no minde to differ from any one; yet, if I have liberty of conſcience, I cannot in conſcience joyn with them in this their ſuppoſition. Neither can we imagin how thoſe caſes of ſcandal and contempt can give ſatisfaction, when they are applyed unto the former texts which require obedience. Are we to give obedience to the law of God, which commands obedience to the laws of men, rightly qualified, only in caſe of ſcandal? or can we conceive that under obedience to lawful Magiſtrates in lawful things, there is no more to be underſtood, then, if there be no ſcandal by inobedience, no contempt by diſobedience? Shall we think he hath no power in things indifferent? for if his power be only in the puniſhing of thoſe who are breakers of the Laws of God, and rewarding of thoſe that are obſervers thereof; then is our obedience injoyned to him only paſſive.
Therefore, if the queſtion be thus ſtated, whether humane laws do binde the Conſcience; in theſe terms abſolutely taken, it is denied: becauſe we are aſſured that no man hath of himſelf any authority over the conſcience; and becauſe we cannot be aſſured that that which is commanded, by virtue of his command is right, but if the queſtion be ſtated thus, Whether we are bound in conſcience to obey a lawful Magiſtrate in lawful commands, not only in the former reſpects; I have no ſcruple ſufficient againſt the affirmative.
One Argument may be this,
All Gods Commandements doe binde in conſcience. That we ſhould be obedient to humane laws is one of Gods Commandements; and therefore are we bound in conſcience to be obedient to humane laws; becauſe we are bound to Gods law concerning them. By the Law Divine we are obliged in conſcience to them by manner of the object of the thing. If we compare the humane law with the Divine law touching it, the humane law, in the whole, is conſidered but as a particular matter of the Divine law. And if we be bound in conſcience to the law of God in all matters of it, how ſhould we not be bound to the Law of God in this? So that if we do not obey, we do not offend a weak brother only, but the great God, by whom Kings reign.
2. We are more bound to our Civil Parents, then children are bound to their natural Parents. But children are bound in conſcience to their natural Parents; ſo then we are bound in conſcience to our Civil Parents. That we are more ſubject to our Civil Parents, appeareth in ſeveral regards; becauſe firſt the dayes we are preſerved in, are more happy then thoſe we were born in, ſince the condition of our birth is uncertain, as the Orator ſaith well. 2. The natural Parent hath not authority of life and death over the childe, as the Civil Parent hath; which is given him immediately by God, as is noted; ſince the people, even upon ſuppoſal of election, cannot give him this; as having not power over their own lives. And 3. Becauſe even the natural Parents are ſubjects to the Civil Parent; ſo that if the natural parent ſhould bid his childe do one thing, and the Civil parent ſhould bid him do another, the command of the natural parent muſt be ſinked in obedience to the Civil; as the rule is, The precept of the inferior doth not binde, when it is contrary to the precept of the ſuperior.
Now for the Aſſumption, that children are bound in conſcience to be obedient to their parents, who, in conſcience, can deny; ſince they have this impreſſion in them by law of nature, which bindes the natural conſcience, as Rom. 2.15. and becauſe alſo their obedience hath a Divine promiſe annexed to the command of God, that they ſhould be obedient to them, Epheſ. 6.2. Honour there is to be expounded by obedience in the firſt verſe. Now what promiſe can we ſay is made by God, but in order to ſuch obedience as we are not in conſcience free to? Indeed they ſhould be obedient to their parents in the Lord, as in the text. But this doth not derogate from their due obedience, but doth qualifie it. It doth not abate their ſubjection in thoſe things wherein they ſhould be ſubject, but doth reſtrain the extenſion of it. Or it doth terminate their obedience in God; doth not withdraw any lawful reſpect to their parents; therefore the next words in the 2. verſe are, Honour thy Father and thy Mother.
Thus, in brief, as towards our obligations to laws Civil, and the goodneſs of obedience thereunto.
But ſome there are who will make a difference betwixt our obligedneſs to laws Civil and laws Eccleſiaſtical.
To this in few, and in way of propoſitions. Firſt, with us, the ſupreme authority for the conſtitution of Eccleſiastical things is the ſame; and therefore there can be no difference on that part. And as for them who hold that no Civil authority is neceſſary to the ſanction of orders for the Church; if they could make their ſuppoſition good, they would further the concluſion; for ſo the authority is more immediately from Chriſt himſelf.
2. Eccleſiaſtical conſtitutions which have the ſame authority with us, in regard of their original iſſue of Supreme power; are like to binde as much as Civil, by reaſon of as great aſſiſtance to be preſumed for the framing of them, as for the framing of thoſe which are political: ſince we have a promiſe from Chriſt of his bleſſing ſucceſſively to the greateſt actions, to be ſure, of the Church, in the end of St. Matthew, I will be with you to the end of the world; which doth not only reſpect Credends, but Agends alſo. And there is a reaſon of ſuch aſſiſtance in order to the third propoſition.
The peace of the Church, unto which the Eccleſiaſtical conſtitutions doe binde in uniformity, is as conſiderable as the peace of the Nation. And if then the political laws do binde as to the preſervation of the publique good in order, and peace, and ſtrength, and plenty; then why ſhould not laws of the Church be as valid in obliging unto unity, and peace, and order, and defence againſt the adverſaries thereof? And this is ſtrengthned by the fourth propoſition which reſpects the end of all the orders of the Church; which is better to diſpoſe them by the means of grace which are diſpenſed in the Church, (and conveniently ordered and adminiſtred by Diſcipline) to glory, which is the univerſal end of all the world; and therefore even of polities. So that we may without much demurre conclude, if we be bound in religion to obedience of laws Civil; we have as much reaſon to be bound in obedience of religion to Church laws.
And to ſay no more at this time about this ſubject, we have experience to compel, as much as may be, a more ſober and ſtrict and ſerious apprehenſion of the neceſſity we have to forbear hereafter the violaof Eccleſiaſtical orders; ſince we have paid ſo dear for our liberty in our breaches, which will not be made up by further differences, and rents, and diſſolutions.
When all is done or undone, we ſhall then ſadly ſee, that, if any thing muſt ſave this Nation and this Church, then it will be this, to do as we did, but better. Conformity to God and men would reconcile us to God and man. Had we had this goodneſs of obedience, we had not been at this day the aſtoniſhment of the world in miſery; as before in proſperity and glory of ſuch a Nation and ſuch a Church, as could not be endured by envy and enemies.