Part One Chapter Five
That The Ceremonies Take Away Christian Liberty, Proved By A Third Reason, Viz., Because They Are Urged Upon Such As, In Their Consciences, Do Condemn Them.
Section 1.
If Christian liberty is taken away, by adstricting {binding} conscience in any, much more by adstricting it in them who are fully persuaded of the unlawfulness of the thing enjoined; yet thus are we dealt with. Bishop Lindsey gives us to understand that, after the making and publication of an ecclesiastical canon, about things of this nature, albeit a man in his own private judgment think another thing more expedient than that which the canon prescribes, yet in that case his conscience must be ruled by the will of the law, and not by his own judgment. And Bishop Spottiswood, to such as object that their conscience will not suffer them to obey, because they are persuaded that such things are not right, answers, that the sentence of their superiors ought to direct them, and make their conscience yield to obedience. Their words I have before transcribed. By which it does manifestly appear that they would bear dominion over our consciences, not as lords only, by requiring the will and ready assent of our consciences to those things which are urged upon us by their sole will and authority, but even as tyrants, not caring if they get so much as constrained obedience, and if by their authority they can compel conscience to that which is contrary to the plhroforia {certainty} and full persuasion which it has conceived.
Section 2.
It will be said that our consciences are in an error, and therefore ought to be corrected by the sentence of superiors, whose authority and will does bind us to receive and embrace the ceremonies, though our consciences do condemn them.
ANSWER. Giving, and not granting, that our consciences do err in condemning the ceremonies, yet, so long as they cannot be otherwise persuaded, the ceremonies ought not to be urged upon us; for if we are made to do that which our consciences do condemn, we are made to sin (Rom. 14:23). It is an audacious contempt, in Calvin´s judgment, to do anything repugnante conscientia {incompatible with conscience}.1 The learned Casuists teach us, that an erring conscience, though non obligat, yet ligat {it does not bind, yet it harnesses}; though we are not obliged to do that which it prescribes, yet are we bound not to do that which it condemns. Whatever is done despite a resisting and protesting conscience is sin, even if that resistance has serious error as an element, says Alsted.2 An erring conscience binds, so that in taking its meaning, one sins by doing something contrary to it, says Hemmingius.3 This holds ever true of an erring conscience about matters of fact, and especially about things indifferent.
If any say that hereby a necessity of sinning is laid on them whose consciences are in an error, I answer that so long as a man keeps an erroneous conscience, a necessity of sinning lies on him and that through his own fault. This necessity arises from this supposition, that he retain his erring conscience, and so is not absolute, because he should inform his conscience rightly, so that he may both do that which he ought to do, and do it so from the approbation of his conscience.
If it is said again, What should be done to them who have not laid down the error of conscience, but do still retain the same? I answer, that which is safer and better is chosen.4 If therefore the error of conscience is about weighty and necessary matters, then it is better to urge men to the doing of a necessary duty in the service of God, than to permit them to neglect the same, because their erring conscience disapproves it; for example, it is better to urge a profane man to come and hear God´s word than to suffer him to neglect the hearing of the same, because his conscience allows him not to hear. But if the error of conscience is about unnecessary things, or such as are in themselves indifferent, then it is pars tutior {the safer part}, the surest and safest part not to urge men to do that which in their con- sciences they condemn. Wherefore, since the ceremonies are not among the number of such necessary things as may not be omitted without the peril of salvation, the invincible disallowance of our consciences should make our opposites not press them upon us, because by practicing them we could not but sin, in that our consciences judge them unlawful. If any of our weak brethren think that he must and should abstain from the eating of flesh upon some certain day, though this thing is in itself indifferent, and not necessary, yet, says Balduine, he who is thus persuaded in his conscience, if he should do the contrary, sins.5
Section Three
Conscience, then, though erring, does ever bind in such sort, that he who does against his conscience sins against God. Which is also the doctrine of Thomas.6 But, without any more ado, it is sufficiently confirmed from Scripture. For was not their conscience in an error who thought they might not lawfully eat all sorts of meat? Yet the Apostle shows that their conscience, as erring as it was, did so bind, that they were damned if they should eat such meat as they judged to be unclean (Rom. 14:14, 23). The reason wherefore an erring conscience binds in this kind is, quoniam agens, etc.7 Because he who does any thing against his conscience does it against the will of God, though not materially and truly, yet formally and by way of interpretation, forsomuch as that which conscience counsels or prescribes, it counsels it under the respect and account of the will of God. He who reproaches some private man, taking him to be the king, is thought to have hurt not the private man, but the king himself. So he that condemns his conscience condemns God himself, because that which conscience counsels or advises is taken to be God´s will. If I go with certain men upon such a course as I judge and esteem to be a treasonable conspiracy against the king (though it be not so indeed), would not his Majesty (if he knew so much), and might he not, justly condemn me as a wicked traitor? But how much more will the King of kings condemn me if I practice the ceremonies which I judge in my conscience to be contrary to the will of God, and to rob him of his royal prerogative?
1. Comment. in Rom. 14:5.
2. Theol. Cas. cap. 2. Quiequid fit repugnante et reclamante conscientia, peccatum est,
etiamsi repugnantia ista gravem errorem includat.
3. Enchyrid., class. 2, cap. 7. Conscientia erronea obligat, sic intelligendo, quod faciens
contra peccet, says Hemmingius.
4. Balduin, de Consc. Cas., lib. 1, cap. 8. Eligatur id quod tutius et melius est.
5. De Consc. Cas., lib. 1, cap. 7.
6. 1 an. 2 an. quest. 19, art. 5.
7. Ames, de Consc., lib. 1, cap. 4.
, the church in this nation has lost its efficacy to bring the light of the Gospel to this nation because of the very reason that Fred highlights. There are dangerous teachings running through what is left of the body of Christ and most don't even realise it. Why? petty disagreement is more 'exciting' I guess. I know it makes us feel better about ourselves. Why, because then we are right. Who would have guessed fifteen years ago that FV would be running roughshod in the Body of Christ? Even in Baptist churches! With all the education and pastoral experience taht exists on this board, let alone the Body of Christ, we should be pusing such false doctrine into the sea. Rather than debating small points of theology and interpretation ad nauseum we should be on our faces in REPENTANCE.
