A26892:8080
A Christian Directory
A Christian directory, or, A sum of practical theology and cases of conscience directing Christians how to use their knowledge and faith, how to improve all helps and means, and to perform all duties, how to overcome temptations, and to escape or mortify every sin : in four parts ... / by Richard Baxter.A Christian directory, or, A summ of practical theologie and cases of conscience directing Christians how to use their knowledge and faith, how to improve all helps and means, and to perform all duties, how to overcome temptations, and to escape or mortifie every sin : in four parts ... / by Richard Baxter.
London: printed by Robert White for Nevill Simmons, 1673
Title page typeset from the transcription.
Part 4 › Chapter 3: Directions for Subjects concerning their duty to their Rulers.
Modern spelling is a reading aid: the words are the author’s, only the spelling is modernized. Original shows the page as printed, with the transcription marks.
§. 69. Direct. 37. In the question whether Humane Laws bind Conscience, the doubt is not of that nature 1as to have necessary influence upon your practice. For all agree that they bind the subject to obedience, and that Gods Law bindeth us to obey them. And if Gods Law bind us to obey mans Law, and so to disobey them be materially a sin against Gods Law, this is as much as is needful to resolve you in respect of practice: No doubt mans Law hath no primitive obliging power at all, but a Derivative from God and under him: And what is it to bind the Conscience (an improper Speech) but to bind the person to judge it his duty (conscire) and so to do it: And no doubt but he is bound to judge it his duty, that is, immediately by Humane Law, and remotely by Divine Law, and so the contrary to be a sin pr•ximat•ly against man, and ultimately against God. This is plain, and the rest is but logomachy.
- 1Direct. 37.
§. 70. Direct. 38. The question is much harder, whether the violation of every Humane Penal Law be 1a sin against God, though a man submit to the penalty? (And the desert of every sin is death) Mr. Rich. Hookers last Book unhappily ended before he gave us the full reason of his judgement in2 this case, these being his last words, [Howbeit, too rigorous it were, that the breach of every Humane Law, should be a deadly sin: A mean there is between those extremities, if so be we can find it out.—] Amesius hath diligently discussed it, and many others. The reason for the affirmative is, because God bindeth us to obey all the lawful commands of our Governors: And suffering the penalty is not obeying; the penalty being not the primary intention of the Law-giver, but the Duty; and the penaly only to enforce the duty: And though the suffering of it satisfy man, it satisfieth not God, whose Law we break by disobeying. Those that are for the Negative, say, that God binding us but to obey the Magistrate, and his Law binding but aut ad obedientiam, ant ad poenam, I fulfil his will if I either do or suffer: If I obey not, I please him by satisfying for my disobedience: And it is none of his will, that my choosing the penalty should be my sin or damnation. To this it is replied, that the Law bindeth ad poenam but on supposition of disobedience: And that disobedience is forbidden of God: And the penalty satisfieth not God, though it satisfy man. The other rejoin, that it satisfieth God, in that it satisfieth man; because Gods Law is but to give force to mans, according to the nature of it. If this hold, then no disobedience at all is a sin in him that suffereth the penalty. In so hard a case, because more distinction is necessary to the explication, than most Readers are, willing to be troubled with, I shall now give you but this brief decision: