“And I will walk at liberty: for I seek thy precepts.”
Ps. 119:45
“and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty.”
2 Cor. 3:17
“For, brethren, ye have been called unto liberty; only use not liberty for an occasion to the flesh, but by love serve one another.”
Gal. 5:13
.
.
Subsection
How Far Church Orders may Limit Christian Liberty
.
.
Order of Contents
Articles 12+
Books 6
Quote 1
Need Not Always be Exercised 1
Latin 5+
.
Articles
1500’s
Bullinger, Henry – The Decades ed. Thomas Harding (Cambridge: Parker Society, 1850), vol. 2, 3rd Decade
9th Sermon, ‘Of Christian Liberty & of Offenses; of Good Works & the Reward Thereof’ 300-57
Melanchthon, Philip – 17. ‘Of Christian Freedom’ in Melanchthon on Christian Doctrine, Loci Communes, 1555 tr. Clyde L. Manschreck (1555; NY: Oxford Univ. Press, 1965), pp. 195-201
Vermigli, Peter Martyr – ‘Of Christian Liberty’ in ch. 5, ‘Of Peace, Bondage, Christian Liberty, of Offense, of Conscience & of the Choice of Meats’ in The Common Places… (d. 1562; London: Henrie Denham et al., 1583), pt. 3, pp. 164-65
Calvin, John
14. ‘Of Christian Liberty’ in Institutes of the Christian Religion: 1541 French Edition tr. Elsie A. McKee (1541; Eerdmans, 2009), pp. 617-28
Institutes of the Christian Religion tr. Henry Beveridge (1559; Edinburgh: Calvin Translation Society, 1845), vol. 2, bk. 3
10. ‘How to use the Present Life, and the comforts of it’ 293-300
19. ‘Of Christian Liberty’ 428-36
Becon, Thomas – 12. ‘Of the Christian Liberty’ in Prayers & Other Pieces by Thomas Becon (d. 1567; Cambridge: Parker Society, 1844), pp. 339-44
Becon (c. 1511-1567) was an Anglican reformer, clergyman and a chaplain to Thomas Cranmer. He was initially significantly influenced by Luther, and then Zwingli.
.
1600’s
Bucanus, William – 33. ‘Of Christian Liberty’ in Institutions of Christian Religion... (London: Snowdon, 1606), pp. 379
What do you understand by this name ‘Christian liberty’?
How manifold is personal liberty?
What is Christian liberty?
What is the cause of this liberty?
In what things does it consist, or how many parts has it, or how many degrees be there of this liberty?
How are we said to be freed from sin, seeing it does always dwell in us, and. Jn. 1;8, ‘If ye say we have no sin we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us’?
What is the use of this part?
What is the second part?
Why are not we freed through Christ from the first death as well as from the second death, seeing both of them are the vvages of sin, and depend upon that threatening, Gen. 2:17, ‘whensoever thou sinnest, thou shalt die’?
What is the use or effect of this liberty?
What is the third part of Christian liberty?
What is the fourth part of Christian liberty?
What call you things indifferent?
Is it lawful without all respect and indifferently to use things that be middle and indifferent?
What should we think of the traditions of men which are not ordained of God?
Does this speech of Christ, Mt. 23:2, ‘The scribes and Pharisees sit in Moses’s chair, whatsoever they say do ye,’ allow of traditions or opinions contrary to the Word of God?
What should we think of good intents as they call them?
When Paul does command, Rom. 13:5, ‘to obey the magistrate, not only for anger,’ that is, fear of punishment, ‘but also for conscience sake,’ does he mean that it is lawful for the magistrate to impose a law on men’s consciences?
What are we to think of ceremonies ordained by Christ?
What is the end and fruit of this part of Christian liberty?
What things make against this?
Rivet, Andrew – 35. ‘On Christian Freedom’ in Synopsis of a Purer Theology: Latin Text & English Translation Buy (1625; Brill, 2016), vol. 2, pp. 372-412
Wolleb, Johannes – 33. ‘Christian Freedom’ in Abridgment of Christian Divinity (1626) in ed. John Beardslee, Reformed Dogmatics: J. Wollebius, G. Voetius & F. Turretin (Oxford Univ. Press, 1965), bk. 1, pp. 176-78
Wolleb (1589–1629) was a Swiss reformed theologian. He was a student of Amandus Polanus.
Preston, John – ‘The Christian Freedom, or the Charter of the Gospel, Showing the Privelege & Prerogatives of the Saints, by Virtue of the Covenant’ 28 pp. in Sun-Beams of Gospel-Light, Shining Clearly from Several Texts of Scripture, Opened & Applied... (d. 1628; London, 1644)
Gillespie, George
English-Popish Ceremonies… (1637), pt. 1
“Who can blame us for standing to the defence of our Christian liberty, which we ought to defend… shall we bear the name of Christians, and yet make no great account of the liberty which has been bought to us by the dearest drops of the precious blood of the Son of God?… Let us stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free, and not be entangled againe with the yoke of bondage [Gal. 5:1]…
…and thus is our practise adstricted in the use of things which are not at all necessary, and aknowledged gratis [freely] by the urgers to be indifferent, adstricted (I say) to the one part without liberty to the other, and that by the mere authority of a human constitution, whereas Christian liberty gives us freedom both for the omission and for the observation of a thing indifferent, except some other reason do adstrict and restrain it, than a bare human constitution…
And what means the apostle whiles he says, ‘If ye be dead with Christ from the rudiments of the world, why as though living in the world, are ye subject to ordinances (touch not, taste not, handle not, which all are to perish with the using) after the commandments and doctrines of men?’ [Col. 2] Sure he condemns not only humana decreta de ritibus [human decrees about worship rites], but also subjection and obedience to such ordinances of men as takes from us liberty of practice in the use of things indifferent, obedience (I say) for conscience of their ordinances merely.
What means also that place, 1 Cor. 7:23, ‘Be not ye the servants of men?’… for to tie ourselves to the doing of anything for the will or pleasure of men, when our conscience can find no other reason for the doing of it, were indeed to make ourselves the servants of men. Far be it then from us to submit our necks to such a heavy yoke of human precepts as would overloaden and undo us. Nay, we will stedfastly resist such unchristian tyranny as goeth about to spoil us of Christian Liberty…
…’David thought the feeding of his body was cause sufficient to break the law of the showbread. Christ thought the satisfying of the disciples’ hunger to be cause sufficient to break the ceremony of the Sabbath: He thought also that the healing of the lepers’ bodies was a just excuse to break the law that forbade the touching of them. Much more then may we think now in our estimation that the feeding of other men’s souls, the satisfying of our own consciences, together with the consciences of other men and the healing of men’s superstition and spiritual leprosy are causes sufficient to break the law of the ceremonies and of the cross, which are not God’s but men’s,’ says Parker.“
ch. 7, ‘That [Imposed] Festival Days take away our Liberty which God has given us, Proved: & First out of the Law’, pp. 20-24
“Albeit we should most humbly subject ourselves to our governors, yet we may not submit our liberty to them, which God has graciously given us, because we are forbidden to be the servants of men (1 Cor. 7:23), or to be entangled with the yoke of bondage (Gal. 5:1).” – p. 21
ch. 8, ‘That [Imposed] Festival Days Take Away our Christian Liberty, Proved out of the Gospel’, pp. 25-31
Wholesome Severity Reconciled with Christian Liberty, or the True Resolution of a Present Controversy Concerning Liberty of Conscience… (London, 1645)
Downame, George – A Brief Sum of Divinity, Showing the Plainest Way how a Man Ought to Examine his Ways in this Life, to the Attainment of Eternity: wherein the Whole Doctrine of Christian Liberty is Briefly Handled & may Serve for Instruction of All such as Desire to Exercise their Gifts Aright, which are in these our Days Very Much Abused (Oxford/Cambridge, 1652) 22 pp.
.
Books
1600’s
Downame, George – The Christian’s Freedom, wherein is Fully Expressed the Doctrine of Christian Liberty (Oxford, 1635)
Sanderson, Robert – Two Sermons, the former concerning the Right Use of Christian Liberty… the latter, concerning the persuasion of conscience… (London, 1635) 97 pp.
Sanderson (1587-1663) was a reformed Anglican, royalist and casuist.
Sibbes, Richard – The Excellency of the Gospel Above the Law, wherein the Liberty of the Sons of God is Showed, with the Image of their Graces here & Glory Hereafter… (London, 1639)
Cradock, Walter – Gospel-Liberty, in the Extensions [&] Limitations of it. Wherein is Laid Down an Exact Way to End the Present Dissensions & to Preserve Future Peace Among the Saints… in Nine Sermons on 1 Cor. 10:23… (London, 1648) ToC
Binning, Hugh – The Sinner’s Sanctuary, or a Discovery made of those Glorious Privileges Offered unto the Penitent & Faithful under the Gospel, unfolding their Freedom from Death, Condemnation & the Law, in Fourty Sermons upon Romans, Ch. 8 (Edinburgh, 1670)
Bolton, Samuel – The True Bounds of Christian Freedom: or a Treatise wherein the Rights of the Law are Vindicated, the Liberties of Grace Maintained & the Several Late Opinions Against the Law are Examined & Confuted (London, 1656) ToC
.
Quote
1600’s
Samuel Rutherford
Lex Rex... (1644; Edinburgh: Ogle, 1843), p. 44
“Where God has not bound the conscience, men may not bind themselves, or the consciences of the posterity.”
.
Christian Liberty need not always be Asserted & Exercised
Quote
1600’s
Richard Baxter
A Second Admonition to Mr. Edward Bagshaw… (London, 1671), sect. 43, pp. 107-13
“Edward Bagshaw: ‘This we affirm: 1. Because we know not how else to preserve our Christian Liberty (which it is an indispensable duty to maintain) but by separating from those that would unduly take it from us.’
Richard Baxter: These universal terms not limited nor expounded are to be taken universally, and so here are two false doctrines: one that it is indispensable duty to maintain all our Christian liberty, and the other that we know not how else to maintain it. But if by this ‘liberty’, you mean but some sort of liberty, and not all, you should have distinguished, if you would not deceive. And if by ‘we know not’ you intend only a confession of your own ignorance, that would be no proof of the point in hand, because that may be true, which you know not.
[On the term ‘Christian liberty’:]
1. There is a liberty called ‘Christian’, because it is essential to Christianity (as to be freed from the Covenant of Works and from the guilt and reign of sin, and from the power of Satan and the state of enmity against God, etc.).
2. There is a liberty called ‘Christian’, because it is procured and given us by Christ, though not essential to Christianity (as to eat of this meat or that, flesh or herbs, to be free from the observation of certain days, and customs, and ceremonies not sinful in themselves).
3. There is a liberty called ‘Christian’, because Christians have it in common with all other men, or with many (as to marry or not marry; to live in this country or that; to be free from oppression, injuries, slanders, persecution, when they can).
[On the term ‘our’:]
And we must distinguish of the word ‘our’, that is, we must show how far this liberty is ours indeed:
1. It is one thing to be ours necessarily, or as you say ‘indispensably’;
[2.] and another thing to be ours when we can get it, keep it, or use it without a greater loss than it will compensate, or a greater hurt to others.
[3.] It is one thing to be ours in fundamental right, to be used at fit times;
[4.] and another thing to be ours to be always used.
[Baxter’s propositions:]
Proposition 1: The liberty which is essential to our Christianity or godliness is indispensably to be maintained and exercised (Isa. 61:1; Lk. 14:18; Gal. 5:12; 2 Pet. 2:19-21).
Proposition 2: All degrees of the same liberty must be maintained, as well as the essentials (Acts 18:26; 2 Tim. 2:26); that is, we must labor to be as free as we can from all the degrees of sin and misery (2 Cor. 3:17): But we cannot here have what we would (Heb. 2:14-15).
Proposition 3: There is a liberty to use certain things as statedly or ordinarily indifferent (Gal. 4:3, 9), which is none of ours (to use them) in several cases (Rom. 8:15), which take away the indifferency (Jn. 8:31, 36, as in case of scandal, or greater hurt to others or ourselves, Rom. 6:16, 18, 22, or of the restraint of just authority).
Proposition 4. The same must be said of forbearing things indifferent.
Proposition 5. Our liberty from persecution, oppression, injuries, slanders, must be patiently let go, as being none of ours when it cannot be kept by lawful means or without a greater hurt, Acts 22:28, etc.
Proposition 6. But our liberty in either of these three last mentioned cases, ought not causelessly to be taken from us by others, nor must be causelessly cast away by ourselves; nor should we yield to false teachers who would deceive the churches by telling them [the churches] that they are under divine obligations when they are not and make them believe that things lawful are unlawful and things indifferent are necessary, Gal. 2:4-5; Col. 2:16, 18, 20-23; Acts 15; 1 Cor. 7:21-22.
The third proposition is it that I am to prove. And Paul’s becoming all things to all men, to save some, a Jew to the Jews, his shaving his head, his circumcising Timothy, with the reasons of it, his resolution to forbear the eating of flesh rather than offend the weak and his persuading others to do the like do fully prove it. He maintains the Christian’s right of liberty against false teachers, but he maintains not the exercise of it when he had reason to let it go: For liberty is not necessity:
1 Cor. 9:1, ‘Am I not free?’
vv. 4-5, ‘Have we not power to eat and to drink? Have we not power to lead about a sister, a wife, as well as other apostles?’
v. 12. ‘If others be partakers of this power over you, are not we rather? Nevertheless we have not used this power, but suffered all things lest we should hinder the Gospel of Christ.’
v. 15, ‘But I have used none of these things’
v. 19, ‘For though I be free from all men, yet have I made myself servant to all, that I might gain the more: And unto the Jews I became a Jew, that I might gain the Jews; To them that are under the Law, as under the Law, that I might gain them that are under the Law: To them that are without the Law, as without Law, that I might gain them that are without Law. To the weak I became as weak, that I might gain the weak: I am made all things to all men, that I might by all means save some. And this I do for the Gospel’s sake’—See 1 Cor. 8:13.
Rom. 14:21, ‘It is good neither to eat flesh, nor to drink wine, nor any thing whereby thy brother stumbleth, or is offended, or is made weak.’
Christ Himself says: Mt. 17:26, ‘Then are the children free: notwithstanding, lest we should offend, go thou, etc. and give them for Me and thee.’
1 Pet. 2:16, ‘As free’ (that is, as such as by Christ are freed from true bondage, but not from order and subjection, and therefore) ‘not having or using liberty for a cloak of maliciousness, but as the servants of God.’ No man has liberty to be unruly or hurtful.
Rom. 7:3, ‘If her husband be dead, she is free from that law,’ and yet may give away that freedom.
Yea, of the very liberty from the Jewish Law, the apostle says, Gal. 5:13, ‘For ye have been called unto liberty’ (quasi dicat [as if he should say], therefore let not false teachers persuade you that you are bound to that which you are freed from) ‘only use not liberty for an occasion to the flesh, but by love serve one another;’ q.d. in the exercise of this liberty you must do or not do the things you are at liberty in, as may do most good according as the law of love requires and not as your own carnal interest and lust inclines you: for all the Law is fulfilled in one word, in this:
[1.] ‘Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself.’
[2.] 1 Cor. 10:25, 28-31, ‘Whatsoever is sold in the shambles eat, asking no question for conscience sake—But if any man say unto you, ‘This is offered in sacrifice to idols,’ eat not for his sake that showed it, and for conscience sake’
(Thus our liberty is not to be exercised against love: for we have no liberty to hurt our brethren)
v. 29, ‘Conscience I say, not thine own, but of the others:’
(Thus others by weakness, and consequently rulers by authority may restrain the exercise of our liberty)
‘For why is my liberty judged of another man’s conscience?’
That is, not that his conscience is the rule of my right or his judgment takes away my title to liberty, but his interest and the law of love do take away my right of using my liberty to another’s hurt.
v. 30, ‘For if I by grace be a partaker’
(that is, lawfully according to my Christian liberty),
‘why am I evil spoken of for that for which I give thanks’
(that is, it is a fault in those that accuse me of sin, when I do that which is lawful in itself, abstracted from the consequents or scandal):
‘Whether therefore ye eat or drink’
(which are things indifferent as to the kind of food)
‘or whatsoever ye do’
(how lawful in itself soever)
‘do all to the glory of God’
(For the interest of the end must guide and restrain you in the use even of things in themselves indifferent: For no man has liberty to dishonor God, nor to hurt another, nor to disobey just power).
I beseech you therefore while you promise men liberty, be not yourself, and make not them the servants of sin, 2 Pet. 2:19. And take notice that liberty must be distinguished as to right and as to use, and that the use must often be denied and not maintained.
2. Let us next see whether there be no way but separation in our case to preserve our liberty? Paul has here showed you another way:
1. By doctrinal defense to defend it against false teachers that would doctrinally bring us into bondage. To maintain against such, as you [Bagshaw] who add to God’s Laws, that we are not bound to do that which is not commanded [such as separation] or to forbear that which is not by God forbidden [such as partial, qualified conformity], though you say we are.
2. To use our liberty as it tends to God’s glory and man’s good, and disuse it when it crosses these (but not deny our right). This is the Scripture way of preserving it: and not to think that we have no way to preserve it but by doing hurt or crossing love by Church-divisions.
3. No falsehood is a just defense of our Christian liberty: but to say, that a true Church is no true Church, or true worship is no true worship, or that it is not lawful to communicate where it is lawful, is a falsehood. Therefore it is no just defense of our liberty.”
.
Latin
1500’s
Calvin, John – ch. 19, ‘On Christian Liberty…’ in An Instruction Against the Fanatical & Furious Sect of the Libertines, which Call Themselves ‘The Spiritual Ones’ in The Smaller Works of John Calvin… (1563), pp. 229-35
.
1600’s
Alsted, Johann H.
ch. 23, ‘Justification & Christian Liberty’ in Distinctions through Universal Theology, taken out of the Canon of the Sacred Letters & Classical Theologians (Frankfurt: 1626), pp. 100-105
ch. 14, ‘On Christian Liberty’ in Theological Common Places Illustrated by Perpetual Similitudes (Frankfurt, 1630), pp. 78-82
Voet, Gisbert
p. 750 in 49. ‘A Disputation: Some Miscellaneous Positions’ in Select Theological Disputations (Amsterdam: Jansson, 1667)
Ecclesiastical Politics (Amsterdam: Waesberge, 1663), vol. 2, pt. 1, bk. 4, Tract 1, Of the Liberty, Immunity & Dignity of the Church
2. Of the Liberty of Conscience and the Permission of Religions in a Republic 379
3. A Disquisition on the Liberty of Consciences, or on Using Force [Coactione] 400
.
.
.
“But whoso looketh into the perfect law of liberty, and continueth therein, he being not a forgetful hearer, but a doer of the work, this man shall be blessed in his deed.”
James 1:25
“As free, and not using your liberty for a cloke of maliciousness, but as the servants of God.”
1 Pet. 2:16
“While they [unbelievers] promise them liberty, they themselves are the servants of corruption: for of whom a man is overcome, of the same is he brought in bondage.”
2 Peter 2:19
.
.
.
Related Pages