On Implicit, or Blind Faith & Obedience

“It is written, ‘Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.'”

Mt. 4:4

“…and they said, ‘All that the Lord hath said will we do, and be obedient.’”

Ex. 24:7

“And if the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch.”

Mt. 15:14

Subsections

Faith is Grounded in Evidence
Arbitrary Laws
Mere Will or Judgment of Authorities: Insufficient Ground of Faith & Obedience
Wrong to Act with Unsure Conscience

Order of Contents

Scriptures
. Implicit Faith & Obedience: Given to God
. Implicit Faith & Obedience: Not to Men
. Only Serve Men in the Lord
Grounds of it being Given to God, Not Men

Articles 14+
Books 2+
Quotes 10+
Westminster
Implicitness in Faith 4
Romanists on 2

Implicit Faith & Obedience to God Alone 4
Believing Doctrines that are Above Reason 3
Right of Private Discretion 6+
Presbyterianism Never Requires Implicit Faith or Obedience 4
Blind Obedience: Mark of Romanism & Prelacy 1
Blind Obedience Entails Blind Faith 1
Blind Faith 3
Do Not Blindly Believe Preachers 3
Citing Works of Men as if they’re the Last Word 1

Being a Servant of Christ, not Men 1
Church Commands & Determinations: Not to be Blindly Obeyed 2
Magistrate: Not to Blindly Obey the Church 1
Magistrate: Not to Exact Blind Obedience in Religoius Matters 1
War 1

Latin 3

Scriptures that Implicit Faith & Obedience is to be Given to God

Gen. 12:1 “Now the Lord had said unto Abram, ‘Get thee out of thy country…
unto a land that I will show thee.”

Gen. 22:2 “Take now thy son, thine only son Isaac, whom thou lovest, and get
thee into the land of Moriah; and offer him there for a burnt offering upon one of
the mountains which I will tell thee of.”

Ex. 24:7 “…and they said, ‘All that the Lord hath said will we do, and be
obedient.’”

Dt. 6:1 “Now these are the commandments, the statutes, and the judgments which the Lord your God commanded to teach you, that ye might do them…”

Dt. 18:18-19 “I will raise them up a Prophet… and will put my words in his
mouth… and it shall come to pass that whosoever will not hearken unto my
words which He shall speak in my name, I will require it of him.”

Dt. 29:29 “The secret things belong unto the Lord our God: but those things
which are revealed belong unto us and to our children forever, that we may do all
the words of this law.”

Job 33:12-13 “…God is greater than man. Why dost thou strive against Him?
For He giveth not account of any of his matters.”

Ps. 94:9 “He that planted the ear…”

Isa. 55:9 “For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher
than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts.”

Mt. 4:4 “But He answered and said, ‘It is written, ‘Man shall not live by bread
alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.’’”

Mt. 9:9 “And as Jesus… saw a man, named Matthew, sitting at the receipt of
custom: and He saith unto him, ‘Follow me.’ And he arose, and followed Him.”

Rev. 1:15 “…and his voice as the sound of many waters…”

Scriptures that Implicit Faith & Obedience is Not to be Given to Men

Gen. 4:6-7 “And the Lord said unto Cain, ‘Why art thou wroth?… If thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted? and if thou doest not well, sin lieth at the door.”

2 Sam. 23:3-4 “The God of Israel said… ‘He that ruleth over men must be just, ruling in the fear of God. And he shall be as the light of the morning, when the sun riseth…”

2 Sam. 24:1-4,15 “And again the anger of the Lord was kindled against Israel, and he moved David against them to say, ‘Go, number Israel and Judah.’… And Joab said unto the king, ‘…but why doth my lord the king delight in this thing?’ Notwithstanding the king’s word prevailed against Joab… And Joab and the captains of the host went out from the presence of the king, to number the people of Israel… So the Lord sent a pestilence upon Israel… and there died of the people… seventy thousand men.”

Ps. 32:9 “Be ye not as the horse, or as the mule, which have no understanding…”

Ps. 119:75 “I know, O Lord, that thy judgments are right;”

Hosea 5:10-12 “The princes of Judah were like them that remove the
bound[ary]… Ephraim is oppressed and broken in judgment, because he
willingly walked after the [human] commandment. Therefore will I be unto
Ephraim as a moth, and to the house of Judah as rottenness.”

Mt. 15:14 “And if the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch.”

Mt. 20:25-27 “Ye know that the princes of the Gentiles exercise dominion over them, and they that are great exercise authority upon them. But it shall not be so among you: but whosoever will be great among you, let him be your minister; And whosoever will be chief among you, let him be your servant:”

Mt. 23:8 “But be not ye called ‘Rabbi’ [my master]: for one is your Master, even Christ; and all ye are brethren.”

Acts 15:23-29 “And they wrote letters by them after this manner: ‘The apostles and elders and brethren send greeting unto the brethren… Forasmuch as we have heard, that certain which went out from us have troubled you with words, subverting your souls… It seemed good unto us, being assembled with one accord, to send chosen men unto you… For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things, that ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication: from which if ye keep yourselves, ye shall do well. Fare ye well.”

Rom. 14:12-13 “So then every one of us shall give account of himself to God. Let us not therefore judge one another any more: but judge this rather, that no man put a stumblingblock or an occasion to fall in his brother’s way.”

Rom. 14:23 “…for whatsoever is not of faith is sin.”

1 Cor. 7:23 “Ye are bought with a price; be not ye the servants of men.”

Gal. 1:10 “…or do I seek to please men? for if I yet pleased men, I should not be the servant of Christ.”

Gal. 5:1 “Stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free,
and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage.”

Col. 2:20-23 “Wherefore 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? Which things have indeed a shew of
wisdom in will worship, and humility, and neglecting of the body…”

Titus 1:14 “Not giving heed to… commandments of men, that turn from the truth.”

1 Pet. 2:16 “As free, and not using your liberty for a cloke of maliciousness, but as the servants of God.”

Scriptures that we are Only to Serve Men when it can be Done in the Lord

Rom. 13:4 “For he is the minister of God to thee for good…”

1 Cor. 4:1 “Let a man so account of us, as of the ministers of Christ…”

1 Cor. 9:19 “For though I be free from all men, yet have I made myself servant unto all, that I might gain the more.”

2 Cor. 4:5 “For we preach not ourselves, but Christ Jesus the Lord; and ourselves your servants for Jesus’ sake.”

Eph. 6:1 “Children, obey your parents in the Lord: for this is right.”

Eph. 6:5-7 “Servants, be obedient to them that are your masters according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, in singleness of your heart, as unto Christ; Not with eyeservice, as menpleasers; but as the servants of Christ, doing the will of God from the heart; With good will doing service, as to the Lord, and not to men:”

Col. 3:18 “Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as it is fit in the Lord.”

1 Thess. 5:12 “…know them which labour among you, and are over you in the Lord, and admonish you;”

The Grounds of Implicit Faith & Obedience being Given to God & Not to Men

Most of the time God commands, it is with reasons, or the reason is readily apparent from the context. The infrequent times God commands without a manifestly apparent and sufficient reason, there yet is still an inherent rational basis for it, which is unique to God (who does nothing without a reason), namely that He, by definition (from the light of nature), is all-good, all-knowing, all-powerful and all in control, all-wise and infallible, and He owns us. This establishes the certain righteousness and goodness of all of God’s
commands, which fact thus morally obliges us.

Officed men, on the other hand, do not own people, they have corruption innate to
themselves, are fallible, are not all-wise, all in control, all-good or all-knowing.
Therefore it is not safe, and thus it is immoral, to implicitly and blindly believe and obey officed men.

While the authority and power resident in the God-given office is wholly righteous and infallible, as its Author, yet whether such persons exercise God’s power therein in their acts is contingent, fallible and possibly only in a certain degree. And thus to give blind and implicit faith and obedience to officed men, treating them as infallible and all good, etc. (that is, as God) is sinful.

Articles

On the Middle Ages

James, Thomas – Section 22, ‘Of Implicit Faith’ in An Apology for John Wickliff, showing his conformity with the now Church of England… (Oxford, 1608)

This short section documents what John Wycliff believed and taught, partly in Latin.

1500’s

Ponet, John – ‘What Confidence is to be Given to Princes & Potentates?’ in A Short Treatise of Politic Power… (Strasbourg, 1556)

Ponet (c. 1514–1556) was an Anglican bishop, controversial writer & Marian exile. He is now best known as a resistance theorist who made a sustained attack on ‘the divine right of kings’.

Calvin, John – Institutes, trans. Beveridge, bk. 3, ch. 2, ‘Of Faith’, sections 2-6

Bullinger, Henry – 3. ‘Of Councils & Decrees of the Church’ in Questions of Religion Cast Abroad in Helvetia [Switzerland] by the Adversaries of the Same, & Answered… tr. John Coxe (London, 1572), pp. 30-43

Beza, Theodore – Question 1, ‘Must Magistrates Always Be Obeyed As Unconditionally As God?’ in Concerning the Rights of Rulers Over Their Subjects & the Duty Of Subjects Towards Their Rulers HTML (1574)

Willet, Andrew

Synopsis Papismi, that is, A general view of Papistry… (London, 1592), 1st Book, 2nd Controversy, 4th Question, ‘of the Authority of the Church’

1st Part, ‘Whether the Church has Authority in Matters of Faith Beside the Scriptures?’, pp. 73-4

Appendix, ‘Whether we are to Believe in the Church?’, p. 75

Ch. 6, 5. Places of Controversy, 11th Controversy, ‘That a General Faith, called fides implicita, an implied faith, is not sufficient’ in Hexapla in Daniel… ([Cambridge] 1610)

Perkins, William – 16th Point, ‘Of Implicit or Infolded Faith’ in A Reformed Catholic: or a Declaration Showing how Near we may come to the Present Church of Rome in Sundry Points of Religion, and wherein we Must Forever Depart from Them… ([Cambridge] 1598) This exact chapter is also in his Golden Chain.

Perkins defines two legitimate protestant senses of implicit faith from Scripture, namely: (1) of the knowledge of things to be believed, and (2) of an apprehension of the object of faith, namely Christ and his benefits. Perkins then distinguishes this from the Romanist teaching.

For a summary, see Pagitt below.

1600’s

Davenant, John – The Determinations, or Resolutions of Certain Theological Questions… trans. Josiah Allport (1634; 1846) bound at the end of John Davenant, A Treatise on Justification, or the Disputatio de Justitia... trans. Josiah Allport (1631; London, 1846), vol. 2

Question 6, ‘The Blind Obedience of the Jesuits Unlawful’, pp. 248-56

Question 29, ‘Implicit Faith is Not Saving Faith’, pp. 370-74

Pagitt, Ephraim – The 16th Point, ‘of Implicit Faith’ in Heresiography, or, A Description of the Heretics & Sectaries of these Latter Times (London, 1645)

This is a brief summary of Perkins’ treatment.

Bolton, Samuel

The Arraignment of Error… (London, 1646), Question 5, ‘What are the Examens of Opinions, or the Trials & Discoveries of Truth & Error?’

Question 1, ‘Who are to Examine Opinions?’, pp. 90-118

Question 3, ‘Who Shall Judge that this [Interpretation] is God’s Mind in Scripture?’, p. 130-144

Prynne, William – 13. ‘Passages deleted against Popish, Blind Obedience’ in Canterbury’s Doom, or, The First Part of a Complete History of the Commitment, Charge, Trial, Condemnation, Execution of William Laud... (London, 1646), pp. 291-2.

This short section is a helpful quote from the reformed commentary on Hebrews (1635) by William Jones (1561-1636) against blind obedience, which passage was deleted by the public licencer, who was in some way (it was alleged) performing the will of Archbishop Laud.

Guild, William

10. ‘That no Implicit Faith Does Save’ in The Old Roman Catholic, as at first he was taught by Paul, in opposition to the New Roman Catholic, as of latter he is taught by the Pope, the one being apostolical, the other apostatical: derived and proven only out of the Epistle of Paul to the Romans… ([Aberdeen,] 1649)

Guild was a Scottish divine who wrote numerous great works against Romanism.

2. ‘That in Matters of Faith we Must Not Rely on the Judgment of the Church or her Pastors’ in An Answer to a Popish Pamphlet Called, ‘The Touch-Stone of the Reformed Gospel’, Made Specially out of Themselves (Aberdeen, 1656)

Bakewell, Thomas – A Plea for Mr. Strong’s Church-Members, Showing [that] they ought not implicitly to submit to his unnecessary and doubtful Rules, Although for it he threaten to debar them from the Lord’s Table, or to leave them altogether (London, 1650)

Bakewell (c.1618-) was a reformed, puritan. William Strong, an Independent and a Westminster divine:

“had imposed some doubtful Rules on his own examined and approved Communicants to subscribe, and till they do it, he is resolved to debar them all from the Lord’s Table, if not wholly forsake them, although their consciences be not satisfied touching the lawfulness of it;”

Bakewell advises Strong’s congregants not to submit to such, especially if their consciences are not satisfied, and argues against the 8 Rules of Strong (which are given) which affirm an Independent church government.

Turretin, Francis – Institutes of Elenctic Theology, tr. George M. Giger, ed. James Dennison Jr. (1679–1685; P&R, 1994)

15th Topic, 9th Question, ‘Is faith assent without knowledge and can it be defined better by ignorance than by knowledge? We deny against the Romanists.’ in vol. 2, pp. 564-68

“Again, as sanctification is imperfect, so faith has its degrees by which it increases and grows, both as to knowledge and as to trust. In this sense, we do not deny that faith can be called in a certain sense implicit, both in children and the uninstructed (who have only an obscure knowledge) and in the more advanced (in whom the light is always mixed with darkness, who often can reach only the fact [to hoti], but do not rise to the why [to dioti]). Thus the faith of the Old Testament fathers could be called obscure and implicit with respect to ours on account of the obscurity of the revelation.

But the question is whether faith in its conception included knowledge; if not a full, still a true and certain knowledge in its own order.” – p. 565

18th Topic, ‘The Church’, Q. 1, ‘The Necessity of the Discussion Concerning the Church, and Whether the Knowledge of the Church Ought to Precede the Knowledge of Doctrine.’ in vol. 3, pp. 1-6

Mather, Increase – A Narrative of the Miseries of New-England, by Reason of an Arbitrary Government Erected There under Sir Edmond Andross… (Boston, 1688) 8 pp.

1800’s

Fuller, Andrew – Sermon 8, ‘The Obedience of Churches to Their Pastors Explained & Enforced’ on Heb. 13:17 in Works 1.196-202

Fuller was an English, Calvinistic baptist. His Independent view of church government is seen in speaking of churches obeying their pastor (singular) in the Lord, with attendant deacons, as opposed to elders (plural), as in presbyterianism.

The sermon is very good.

Lorimer, John G. – Lecture 7, ‘Popery, the Enemy of Knowledge: Impairs the Intellectual Powers: No private judgment, ignorance cherished, being essential to the system’ in The Doctrines and Practices of Popery Examined, in a course of Lectures, by Ministers in Glasgow (183?), pp. 160-202

Lorimer was a Free Church of Scotland minister in Glasgow.

Connelly, Pierce (Pascal the Younger) – ch. 7, ‘Blind Obedience’ in Cases of Conscience, or, Lessons in Morals: for the Use of the Laity, Extracted from the Moral Theology of the Romish Clergy (London, 1851), pp. 48-53

This work is against Romanism, and is specifically against the ethics of the Jesuits. Blaise Pascal (1623-1662) had attacked the wicked doctrines of the Jesuits, such as evading oaths and giving permission to sin, in his Provincial Letters. Hence this English author styled himself, ‘Pascal the Younger’.

This chapter contains significant quotes from the foundational writings of the Jesuits, evidencing their doctrine of blind obedience, and their (twisted) reasons and justifications for it.

Ryle, J.C. – ‘The Fallibility of Ministers’

Ryle was a godly and evangelical, low church, Anglican minister.

Books

1600’s

Wilson, Thomas – Judicium Discretionis, or, A Just & Necessary Apology for the Peoples’ ‘Judgement of Private Discretion’, Exhibited Against the Arrogant Pretences and Imperious Suggestions of Tannerus, Valentia, Bellarmine, with Other Advocates of the Papal Tyranny… (London, 1667) 111 pp.

It is unclear which Thomas Wilson this was. The piece itself has no identifying information.

A Protestant – To En Archy: or an Exercitation upon a Momentous Question in Divinity & Case of Conscience, viz. Whether it be Lawful for any Person to act contrary to the opinion of his own conscience, formed from arguments that to him appear very probable, though not necessary or demonstrative, Where the opinions of the Papists, Vasquez, Sanches, Azonius, etc. are showed, as also the opinions of some Protestants, viz. Mr. Hooker, Bishop Sanderson, Dr. Fulwood, etc. & compared with the opinions of others; the negative part of the question maintained; the unreasonableness of the Popish opinions, and some Protestants, for Blind Obedience, Detected, & many other things discoursed (London, 1675) 82 pp.

Quotes

Order of

On Hus
Polanus
Ames
Gillespie
Rathband
Rutherford
Dury
Baxter
Fergusson
Presbyterians & Independents
Bairdie
Baxter

1400’s

On John Hus

J.A. Wiley, The History of Protestantism, bk. 3, ch. 6, end of, pp. 251-252

“At last the matter was brought very much to this point: would he submit himself implicitly to the Council? The snare was cunningly set, but Huss had wisdom to see and avoid it. “If the Council should even tell you,” said a doctor, whose name has not been preserved, “that you have but one eye, you would be obliged to agree with the Council.” “But,” said Huss,

“as long as God keeps me in my senses, I would not say such a thing, even though the whole world should require it, because I could not say it without wounding my conscience.”

What an obstinate, self-opinionated, arrogant man! said the Fathers. Even the emperor was irritated at what he regarded as stubbornness, and giving way to a burst of passion, declared that such unreasonable obduracy was worthy of death.”

1600’s

Amandus Polanus

‘Analytical Theses on Colossians, containing the Exordium of the Epistle’, pt. 1 (on Col. 1:1-11) $3 Download tr. Jonathan Tomes (Basel: Johannes Schroeter, 1601)

“XXXVII. Christianity consists in a correct knowledge of God’s will and holy obedience according to that knowledge.

XXXVIII. The knowledge of God’s will necessarily precedes the performance of obedience.”

William Ames

A Fresh Suit Against Human Ceremonies in God’s Worship… (Amsterdam: Thorp, 1633), ch. 1, section 17, p. 86

“…I finde this rule [in an epistle of Augustine], that:

‘it is lawful or not lawful to believe or not to believe other witnesses or testimonies besides that of the Scriptures, so far as you see they bear or do not bear weight to make us give more credit to a thing.’

Which being granted, the fact of the Church cannot so confirm this or that to be right and well as that it should be madness to deny it.”

George Gillespie

English-Popish Ceremonies (1637), pt. 3, Ch. 8, p. 138

“…it is not only a liberty but a duty of inferiors, not to receive for a thing lawful that which is enjoined by superiors, because they account it and call it such, but by the judgment of their own discretion following the rules of the Word, to try and examine whether the same be lawful or unlawful.”

William Rathband

“Publisher, William Rathband to the Reader” in English Puritans, A Refutation of the Errors of Separatists (1604; 1644; RBO, 2025), p. 193

“…no man’s person whatsoever can be a sufficient bottom whereon to settle any opinion or practice in religion, but the Word of God and right reason alone…”

Samuel Rutherford

Lex Rex... (1644; Edinburgh: Ogle, 1843), p. xxiii

“They [general assemblies] may not force the conscience of the poorest beggar, nor is any Assembly infallible, nor can it lay bounds upon the souls of judges, which they are to obey with blind obedience — their power is ministerial, subordinate to Christ’s law…”

The Divine Right of Church Government… (London, 1646), Appendix, Question 1, pp. 6-7

“1 Cor. 6:12, ‘All things (indifferent) are lawful in themselves, but they are not expedient,’ if we be brought under the power or band of them by law. Therefore, in the means of worship, not only must we see what is lawful, but also what is profitable and conducing to the end…

1 Cor. 7:6, ‘But this I speak by permission, not of commandment.’ Therefore in things in which God has granted us liberty, to do or not to do, permission has place, not obliging necessity or penal laws.

13th Proposition. There cannot be commanding laws in things that are politicly good or evil according to the individual complexion, temperature, or gifts of singular men: [for example] to marry or not to marry, cannot be commanded, for where God looses, no power on earth can bind, v. 33.

1 Cor. 8:7, Paul condemns them in the use of their Christian liberty, ‘Howbeit there be not in every man this knowledge;’ then that rulers may make laws in things indifferent, without scandal, they must remove ignorance.

2. If there be but one person weak in knowledge (there is not in every man that knowledge), a law obliging all in things indifferent cannot be made.”

John Dury

Just Re-Proposals to Humble Proposals… concerning the Engagement which the Parliament hath ordered to be taken (London, 1650), p. 1

“…it is neither just nor conscionable that any matter should be pressed upon the conscience of any as a duty otherwise than by a clear demonstration of the righteousness thereof and a conviction of the judgment therein:”

Richard Baxter

Christian Concord, or the Agreement of the Associated Pastors & Churches of Worcestershire, with Richard Baxter’s Explication & Defence of it, & his Exhortation to Unity (London: A.M., 1653), ‘An Explication of some Passages in the foregoing Propositions’, pp. 1-2

“1. We never intended these Propositions for the taking any sober man (of any of the parties whose union we endeavor) from his former principles; nor for the laying down of any middle way, in which the differing parties may accommodate, by any abatement on each or any side, of their former opinions.

For we know that can be no way of general accord, without a long and full debate of all differences, with all persons or with all the leaders that can sway the rest. For if we should satisfy all that we confer with, and jointly agree upon some abatement of our opinions; we cannot expect that others should be ever the more altered or united that hear not our reasons: Or if all should hear them, yet men’s judgments will be variously wrought on, according to the degrees of their strength or weakness; or according to their former prejudice and apprehensions; and much according to the inclination of their wills, to reformation, holiness, unity and peace.

We do therefore suppose in these Propositions that those whom we unite with, do still retain their differing judgments; And our business is but this: To improve those points wherein we are all agreed, for unanimous practice. Till we have opportunity to seek after an accomodation of opinions, or a conviction of each other, we resolve, by God’s help, to close in an amicable practice of so much as we do consent in…

We are not such strangers to ourselves and mankind as not to know that we must unavoidably be of various opinions while we live here in imperfection, and differ in part while we know but in part. We suppose the apostle never expected that all the Corinthians should in all things have the same opinions, when he so importunately persuades them by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, to speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among them, but that they be perfectly joined together in the same mind, and in the same judgement, 1 Cor. 1:10.”

Catholic Theology, Plain, Pure, Peaceable... (London: White, 1675), Preface, n.p.

“And having first corrupted [Church] government from the primitive simplicity, and made princes their lictors [jailors and executioners] (as [Hugo] Grotius speaks in that excellent epistle newly translated by Mr. Barksdale), they next corrupt doctrine and worship consequently. For tyrants must have their wills in everything: and numerous and needless laws and canons must be made to show their power and fulfil their wills, that they may be lawgivers and a rule to all the world. And when they have made a seeming necessity of doing things unnecessary, then to plead the necessity which they have made, is the sum of all their arguments.

And they that are against strict and precise adhering to the Scriptures, or observance of God’s own commands, are yet so strict for obedience to their proud imperious wills that they persuade themselves and others that without it there can be no order, no unity, no peace, but rebellion and confusion: And so they cry up obedience, obedience, that their idol wills may be bowed to by all without control; And when they are mere usurpers, and use no power given them by God, they yet get the advantage of making all odious that obey them not in the least and greatest matters, by the names of schism, unruliness or such like.

O say the Papal usurpers, ‘The Church must be obeyed, or there will be no order: Disobedience in small matters is no small sin,’ when they have set up an idol-power against Christ; as if to disobey Him, whose laws they make void by their traditions and usurpations were a lesser fault. And when they have departed as far from the Christian simplicity in doctrine, government and worship, as their voluminous councils and decretals, and missals differ from the ancient simple Christianity, and have made as many snares and engines to divide and tear the Church of Christ as there are noxious (that I say not needless) laws, canons, and decrees imposed as necessary to peace and concord, then no men’s mouths are more opened against schism, when they have unavoidably caused it, yea are the greatest schismatics; And no men call so loud for unity and concord, as they that have first made it a thing impossible.
…

…
2. Have they not room enough to show their power, and work enough to do in seeing to the execution of Christ’s own universal laws and preserving mere order and decency in undetermined circumstances, that all may be done to edification?

3. Does not every needless oath and subscription by which they would tie men faster to themselves in controvertible cases, plainly tend to undermine themselves and keep up still a conscientious party against them? For while men have nothing to do but live quietly under a government, they will be glad of peace: But when they are put to subscribe, declare, covenant and swear that all this is good or lawful, or that they will never be against it, it sets men unavoidably on the deepest studies of the case, and so all the people are set on trying and judging of that, which else they would never have meddled with: For what honest man will say, swear or promise he knows not what? Even as some crafty rebels would undermine princes by drawing them to put the controverted parts of their prerogative into the subjects’ oaths, that so they may make all the people students and judges of the cause, and unavoidably make factions and dissenters, that else would have lived quietly if they might: so do the Papal clergy ruin themselves by such over-doing impositions.

I remember Lampridius tells us that Alexander Severus (that great enemy of injustice) was so severe that he would have made a law to regulate men’s apparel: But Ulpian changed his mind by telling him that many laws cause divisions and make occasions of disobedience.

They cry out, ‘There will be no order if ministers and people be left to their own discretion in such and such circumstantials;’ but do they dream of perfect concord on earth? and that men of such various interests, tempers, educations, converse and degrees of knowledge should not differ in a word or gesture? Our English rulers make no laws what gesture shall be used in singing Psalms, or in hearing sermons, and there is no division or great disorder in them: But if on pretence of nearer concord, they should tie all to one gesture, this or that, we should presently find it an engine of division. And O how many such engines have the Papal clergy made and used long! and to what purpose? To silence faithful ministers, to torment faithful Christians in the inquisitions, to brand the best men with the names of heretics and schismatics, to gratify all profaneness and malignity, to quench brotherly love, and to tear the Church into pieces; and no experience will make them wiser.”

James Fergusson

A Brief Exposition of the Epistles of Paul to the Philippians & Colossians (Edinburgh: Higgins, 1656), Col. 2, verse 23, ‘Which things have indeed a show of wisdom in will-worship and humility, and neglecting of the body, not in any honor to the satisfying of the flesh’, p. 205

“For men to give blind obedience unto the commands of superiors, though it pretend to humility and devout submission of mind, yet it is not real humility, but a prostituting of our souls and consciences to the wills of men; So this humility or submissive disposition, which was their second pretence, has but a shew of wisdom in it, and is not real.”

Leading English Presbyterian & Independent Ministers

The Grand Debate between the most reverend Bishops & the Presbyterian Divines appointed by His Sacred Majesty as Commissioners for the Review & Alteration of the Book of Common Prayer... (London, 1661), ‘The Papers’, pp. 50-51

“5. That humble men may believe that their superiors are fallible; that it is no impossibility to command things that God forbids, that in such cases, if we have sufficient means to discern the sinfulness of such commands, we must make use of them, and must obey God rather than men; that when the Apostles acted according to such a resolution, Acts 4:19, and Daniel and the three witnesses, Dan. 6 and 3, they all exercised a judgment of discerning upon the matter of their superiors’ commands; that not to do so at all is to make subjects brutes and so no subjects, because not rational free agents, or to make all governors to be gods…

And therefore absolute obedience must be given only to God the absolute Sovereign.”

John Bairdie

Balm from Gilead, or the Differences about the Indulgence Stated & Impleaded in a Sober & Serious Letter to Ministers & Christians in Scotland (1674; London: Cockerill, 1681), pp. 169-70

“VI. Take the Law and the Testimony for your alone oracle in all things, Isa. 8:20. Set not up your own imaginations, nor yet take any man’s bare assertion for the supreme judge of controversies or rule of right and directory of your way. Listen to ministers and be not lightly suspicious of their judgment, but take nothing upon trust; but see with your own eyes, as they, Acts 17:11…”

Richard Baxter

The Catechizing of Families... (London, 1683), ch. 42, ‘Of the 9th Commandment’, pp. 361-62

“2. We must believe none that speak against the Light of Nature and common notices of all mankind: for that were to renounce humanity: And the Law of Nature is God’s first Law. But it is not the sentiments of nature as depraved which is this Law.

3. We must believe no men against the common senses of mankind, exercised on their duly qualified objects. Faith contradicts not common sense, though it go above it. We are men before we are Christians, and sense and reason are presupposed to faith… For if sense be not to be trusted, we know not that there is a Church, or a man, or a Bible or any thing in the world, and so nothing can be believed. Whether all sound senses may be deceived or not, God has given us no surer way of certainty.

4. Nothing is to be believed against the certain interest of all mankind and tending to their destruction; That which would damn souls, or deny their immortality and future hope, or ruin the Christian world or nations, is not to be believed to be duty or lawful: For truth is for good, and faith is for felicity; and no man is bound to such destructive things.

5. Nothing is to be believed as absolutely certain which depends on the mere honesty of the speakers: For all men are liable to mistake or lie.

6. The more ignorant, malicious, unconscionable, factious, siding, any man is, the less credible he is. And the wiser and nearer to the action any man is, and the more conscionable, peaceable and impartial he is, the more credible he is. An enemy speaking well of a man, is so far more credible than a friend: Multitudes, as capable and honest, are more credible than one.

7. As that certainty which is called moral, as depending on men’s free-will, is never absolute, but has many degrees, as the witness is more or less credible; so there is a certainty by men’s report, tradition or history which is physical and wholly infallible: As that there is such a place as Rome, Paris, etc. and that the statutes of the land were made by such kings and parliaments to whom they are ascribed; and that there have been such kings, etc. For proof of which know:

1. That besides the free acts, the will has some acts as necessary as it is to the fire to burn, viz. To Love ourselves and felicity, and more such.

2. That when all men of contrary interest, friends and foes, agree in a matter that has sensible evidence, it is the effect of such a necessitating cause.

3. And there is no cause in nature that can make them so agree in a lie.

Therefore it is a natural certainty. Look back to the sixth chapter.”

Westminster

Westminster Confession of Faith

ch. 20

“II. God alone is lord of the conscience,[k] and hath left it free from the doctrines and commandments of men which are in any thing contrary to his word, or beside it, in matters of faith or worship.[l] So that to believe such doctrines, or to obey such commandments out of conscience, is to betray true liberty of conscience:[m] and the requiring of an implicit faith, and an absolute and blind obedience, is to destroy liberty of conscience, and reason also.[n]

[k] Jam. 4:12. Rom. 14:4.
[l] Acts 4:19. Acts 5:29. 1 Cor. 7:23. Matt. 23:8-10. 2 Cor. 1:24. Matt. 15:9.
[m] Col. 2:20,22,23. Gal. 1:10. Gal. 2:4,5. Gal. 5:1.
[n] Rom. 10:17. Rom. 14:23. Isa. 8:20. Acts 17:11. John 4:22. Hos. 5:11. Rev. 13:12,16,17. Jer. 8:9.

…
IV. And because the powers which God hath ordained, and the liberty which Christ hath purchased, are not intended by God to destroy, but mutually to uphold and preserve one another;”

ch. 31

“IV. All synods or councils, since the apostles’ times, whether general or particular, may err, and many have erred; therefore they are not to be made the rule of faith or practice, but to be used as a help in both.[e]

[e] Eph. 2:20. Acts 17:11. 1 Cor. 2:5. 2 Cor. 1:24“

On the Westminster Assembly’s Rules, an Organized Discussion & the Exercxise of Public Dissent, but Not Private Dissent

MacKenzie, Kirsteen – The Solemn League & Covenant of the Three Kingdoms & the Cromwellian Union, 1643-1663 (Routledge, 2018), ch. 1, p. 37

What Aspects of Implicitness May be in Faith & What Not

Quotes

Order of

Calvin
Alsted
Rutherford
Le Blanc

1500’s

John Calvin

Commentary on the Gospels

“Though this [Syro-Phoenician / Canaanite] woman had not been regularly educated by any teacher, yet her faith in Christ was not a notion adopted by her at random, but was formed out of the law and the prophets. It was therefore not less absurd than wicked in that dog, Servetus, to abuse this example for the purpose of proving that faith may exist without promises. I do not deny that, in this sense, there may sometimes be a sort of implicit faith, that is, a faith which is not accompanied by a full and distinct knowledge of sound doctrine; provided we also hold that faith always springs from the word of God, and takes its origin from true principles, and therefore is always found in connection with some light of knowledge.”

1600’s

Johann H. Alsted

‘On Justification & Good Works in General’ in Theologia polemica, exhibens praecipuas huius aeui in religionis negotio controuersias sex in partes tributa studio (d. 1638) at Nosferatu’s Substack (2024)

“Controversy I: Is there implicit faith?

Orthodox Position: Implicit faith, that is, intricate and not explicit, exists in two ways:

1. Regarding knowledge, when the things necessary for salvation are not sufficiently understood distinctly, as seen in the disciples of Christ, who imagined a worldly kingdom. Similarly, today, in many of the elect, there is a multitude of ignorance forgiven because they know the foundation of salvation.

2. Regarding the apprehension of Christ and His benefits, when at the time of first conversion and temptation, faith wavers (Isaiah 42:3; Matthew 5:6). Here, the desire to believe is accompanied by infinite sighs, which God approves (Romans 8:26).

Position of Bellarmine: Implicit faith is that in which one agrees with the Church and professes to believe what the Church and its pastors believe. The Church is the pillar of truth, and the pastors who agree with the Roman Pope cannot err.

Censure: Knowledge is of the essence of faith (Isaiah 53:11; John 17:3). Furthermore, the Church is called the pillar of truth not by inspiring authority but by the ministry of preserving and witnessing. Finally, there is a fallacy of begging the question involved.”

Samuel Rutherford

The Due Right of Presbyteries (1644), pt. 2, ch. 4, section 5, pp. 224-9

“5th Distinction. The faith of fundamentals [of Christianity] is implicit three ways: 1. In respect of the degree of believing; 2. In respect of the object; 3. In respect of the subject, or our adherence to things believed.

[1.] In respect of degrees, the faith is implicit and weak three ways, as Calvin may teach: 1. Because we are ignorant of some less-fundamentals; 2. Because we see in a mirror and imperfectly [1 Cor. 13]; 3. In respect of believing upon a false ground, as for [believing doctrine solely for] miracles [and not ultimately because it is God’s Word].

[2.] In respect of the object, the certainty is most sure, as sure as that God cannot lie.

[3.] In respect of our adherence of understanding and affections: in this respect the knowledge of fundamentals must be certain: 1. By a negative certitude which excludes doubting, and so pastor and people must have a certitude of fundamentals, as Rom. 14:5; Col. 1:9; Heb. 5:12; but for a positive certitude, there is not that measure required in a teacher that is in a scholar, for all the body cannot be an eye, 1 Cor. 12:17, yet is a Christian certitude and fulness of persuasion required even of all Christians, Col. 2:2; Col. 3:16, highest and greatest in its kind, though many may be saved with less; yet a distinct knowledge of fundamentals in all is not necessary by a necessity of the means, necessitate medii, as Beza and Doctor Ames teach (Beza, vol. 1, opul., p. 141; Ames, De C•ust., bk. 4, ch. 2, q. 3).

[3. continued] There is a faith of fundamentals implicit in respect of the will and affections, which Papists make a wide faith, as the Jesuit Becanus (2nd part, de V•tu•i. Theolog., ch. 2, q. 3) think[s] to believe these [are the] two fundamentals, 1. That there is a God; 2. That this God has a providence concerning men’s salvation, though other particulars be not known. Or implicit faith is, says Estius (bk. 3, d. 25, q. 2), when any is ready to believe what the Church shall teach; which faith (Suarez says, de Trip., disp. virt. Theolo., 13, section 8), though it include ignorance, yet keeps men from the danger of errors, because it does submit the mind to the nearest rule of teaching, to wit, to the Church; the knowledge of fundamentals in this sense does not save, but condemn. Thomas says better than he (22, q. 2, art. 5).”

Louis Le Blanc

‘Theological Theses on Faith’ in Theological Theses put forth at Various Times at the Academy of Sedan 3rd ed. tr. Onku with AI (1645; London: Moses Pitt, 1683), p. 4 Le Blanc (1614-1675) was a reformed professor of theology at Sedan, France.

“XX. Moreover, it is necessary that those things which pertain to the principal object of faith be believed distinctly; but the rest it is enough if they are believed confusedly. Those things are believed distinctly which faith apprehends separately and one by one. And this is the faith which is called explicit.

Confusedly, those things which are not apprehended in particular, but only in some common principle in which they are contained: and this is the faith which they call implicit. For example, he who believes that the book of Judges is divinely inspired, yet has not read it nor heard anything recited about it: he indeed believes that the histories contained there are true, but implicitly and confusedly. But he who reads those histories and knows one by one the things narrated in that book about Samson and Gideon and the rest of the leaders of the Israelite people, he has explicit and distinct faith of them.”

Romanists on Implicit Faith & Obedience

Articles

1800’s

This chapter contains significant quotes from the foundational writings of the Jesuits, evidencing their doctrine of blind obedience, and their (twisted) reasons and justifications for it.

Begg, James – ch. 3, pp. 69-70 of A Handbook of Popery… (1852) A certain Romanist, Dr. Newman, president of the New Popish College in Ireland, is quoted at length.

That Implicit Faith & Obedience is to be Given to God Alone

Intro

The reason that implicit faith and obedience is to be given to God alone is because God is all knowing, wise and good, as well as infallible. Hence, knowing this from the light of nature, the soul may and should rationally trust and obey whatever proceeds out of God’s mouth. As God is rational and does all things for his own reasons, so the soul may also know and trust that in implicitly believing and obeying God, he or she is doing the most rational thing possible, which will infallibly result in God’s glory and his or her own good.

Needless to say, no one else is qualified to wield such implicit faith and obedience, as all men are finite, fallible, corrupt, etc.

Quotes

Order of

Calvin
Gillespie
Rutherford
Hoornbeek

1500’s

John Calvin

Institutes

bk. 2, ch. 15, section 5

“…He reigns by divine authority, because his reason for assuming the office of Mediator was, that descending from the bosom and incomprehensible glory of the Father, He might draw near to us. Wherefore there is the greater reason that we all should with one consent prepare to obey, and with the greatest alacrity yield implicit obedience to his will.”

bk. 3, ch. 7, section 1

“We are not our own; therefore, neither is our own reason or will to rule our acts and counsels… let us not make it our end to seek what may be agreeable to our carnal nature… we are God’s; let us therefore live and die to Him (Rom. 14:8); We are God’s; therefore, let his wisdom and will preside over all our actions. We are God’s; to Him, then, as the only legitimate end, let every part of our life be directed. O how great the proficiency of him, who taught that he is not his own, has withdrawn the dominion and government of himself from his own reason that he may give them to God. For as the surest source of destruction to men is to obey themselves, so the only haven of safety is to have no other will, no other wisdom, than to follow the Lord wherever He leads.

Let this, then, be the first step, to abandon ourselves, and devote the whole energy of our minds to the service of God. By service, I mean not only that which consists in verbal obedience, but that by which the mind, divested of its own carnal feelings, implicitly obeys the call of the Spirit of God. This transformation (which Paul calls the renewing of the mind, Rom. 12:2; Eph. 4:23) though it is the first entrance to life, was unknown to all the philosophers.

They give the government of man to reason alone, thinking that she alone is to be listened to; in short, they assign to her the sole direction of the conduct. But Christian philosophy bids her give place and yield complete submission to the Holy Spirit, so that the man himself no longer lives, but Christ lives and reigns in him (Gal. 2:20).”

bk. 3, ch. 8, section 5

“5. Still, however, we see not how necessary that obedience is, unless we at the same time consider how prone our carnal nature is to shake off the yoke of God whenever it has been treated with some degree of gentleness and indulgence. It just happens to it, as with refractory horses, which, if kept idle for a few days at hack and manger, become ungovernable and no longer recognize the rider, whose command before they implicitly obeyed.

And we invariably become what God complains of in the people of Israel — waxing gross and fat, we kick against Him who reared and nursed us (Deut. xxxii. 15). The kindness of God should allure us to ponder and love his goodness…”

1600’s

George Gillespie

A Dispute Against the English-Popish Ceremonies... (1637), pt. 3

ch. 6, pp. 104-6

“A politic writer admonishes, retinere antiqua [retain that which is ancient], only with this caution: Si proba [if it is proved].

Calvin (speaking against human ceremonies) says: Si objiciatur, etc. ‘If’, says he, ‘antiquity be objected (albeit they who are too much addicted to custom and to received fashions, do boldly use this buckler to defend all their corruptions), the refutation is easy: For the ancients also themselves with heavy complaints have abundantly testified that they did not approve of anything which was devised by the will of men.’…

3. …If then it be enough to pitch upon custom, why ought not those customs to have been commended and continued? But if they were commendably changed, then ought we not to follow blindly the bare custom of the Church, but examine the equity of the same, and demand grounds of reason for it.

St. Paul (says Dr. Fulke) does give reasons for that order of covering women’s heads: By whose example the preachers are likewise to endeavor to satisfy by reason both men and women, that humbly desire their resolution for quiet of their conscience, and not to beat them down with the club of custom only.”

ch. 8, Digression 3, ‘Of the Judging of Controversies & Questions of Faith’, p. 176

“There is a twofold judgment which discerns and judges of faith. The one absolute, whereby the Most High God, whose supreme Authority alone, binds us to believe whatsoever He propounds to be believed by us, has in his written Word pronounced, declared and established what He would have us to believe concerning Himself or his worship. The other [is] limited and subordinate…”

p. 197

“We desire proofs, not words.”

Samuel Rutherford

The Divine Right of Church Government (1646), Introduction, section 6, p. 86

“When we kneel to kings, we signify by that gesture that we submit ourselves to higher powers, not simply (says Peter Martyr) but insofar as they command not things against the Word of the Lord. When we adore God, we adore Him as the Supreme Majesty, being ready to obey Him in what He shall command, without any exception…”

A Free Disputation Against Pretended Liberty of Conscience… (1649), ch. 2, p. 42

“This imposing [of Church courts] takes not away judicious believing [by individuals]… If imposing were a commanding that we receive absolutely what they say, be it good, or ill, without examining [whether] the argument were concludent, as God himself requires Abraham to kill his son, Abraham was without examination to give absolute obedience, and this proves God to be Lord of the conscience, for knowing his Word to be his Word, we are not to examine it by the Scripture or Law of Nature, because if we know who speaks, we are not to examine what is spoken.

But though we know who speaks among creatures, be it a prophet, an apostle, an angel, yet must we examine both who speaks and what is spoken.”

Johannes Hoornbeek, Johannes

‘Theological Disputation on Faith’ tr. Onku with AI (Leiden: Johann Elsevir, 1661) Latin

“V. Human veracity, and therefore authority, is always fallible, and therefore cannot generate infallible faith. On the contrary, in divine things, as the truth and authority of God speaking, so faith had in Him is infallible.

1 Sam. 24:10, “And David said to Saul, ‘Why do you listen to the words of men who say …?'” And ch. 27:12, “So Achish believed David.” 1 Kings 10:7, “However I did not believe the words until I came …” Prov. 14:15, “The simple believes every word.” This, therefore, is faith–to believe someone’s words.

When he is a man, it is human faith; but if God’s words are adhered to, it is divine faith. 1 John 5:9, “If we receive the witness of men, the witness of God is greater” – that is, that we may receive the testimony which God has given about his Son. There men are believed by human faith; here God, by divine faith. John 4:41-42, “And many more believed because of His own word,” that is, Christ’s. “Then they said to the woman, ‘Now we believe, not because of what you said, for we ourselves have heard Him and we know that this is indeed the Christ, the Savior of the world.'”

On Believing Doctrines that are Above Reason

Quotes

1600’s

George Gillespie

A Treatise of Miscellany Questions... (Edinburgh, 1649), ch. 11, ‘Of Stability & Firmness in the Truth’, p. 140

“7. Let reason be brought in captivity to the obedience of Christ, 2 Cor. 10:5. That which made the Antitrinitarians and Socinians fall away from the belief of the Trinity of persons in the Godhead, and of the union of the two natures of God and man in the person of Christ, was because their reason could not comprehend these articles: which is the ground of their opinion professed by themselves.

When I speak of captivating reason, I do not mean implicit faith: the eyes of my understanding must be so far opened by the Holy Ghost, that I may know such an article is held forth in Scripture to be believed, and therefore I do believe that it is, though my reason cannot comprehend how it is.”

Francis Turretin

15th Topic, 9th Question, ‘Is faith assent without knowledge and can it be defined better by ignorance than by knowledge? We deny against the Romanists.’ in Institutes (P&R), vol. 2, pp. 564-5

“II. The question is not whether faith… is a full and perfect knowledge of mysteries, both as to the reason (to dioti) and the fact (to hoti), so that we ought to believe nothing which we do not clearly and distinctly perceive. For as most gospel mysteries in the greatest degree escape the grasp of the reason, they can never be clearly and distinctly perceived by us as to the wherefore (to dioti) or the how (to pos) or their nature and mode, but only as to the fact because they are truly thus revealed.”

Article

Lobb, Samuel – ‘How May We Graciously Improve Those Doctrines and Providences Which Transcend Our Understanding?’ in Puritan Sermons: The Morning Exercises, 3.417-450

On the Right of Private Discretion

Order of Contents

Articles 3
Quotes 4

Articles

1300’s

Wyclif, John – pt. 4, ch. 25, ‘Laymen are Permitted to Judge Clerics’ in On the Truth of Holy Scripture tr. Ian C. Levy in TEAMS Commentary Series (1377-1378; Medieval Institute Publications, 2001), pp. 306-11

1600’s

Gillespie, George – 3rd Part, pp. 134-138 of ch. 8, ‘That the Lawfulness of the Ceremonies cannot be Warranted by any Ordinance of the Civil Magistrate…’ in English-Popish Ceremonies... (Edinburgh, 1637)

1700’s

De Moor, Bernard – 39. ‘Private & Ministerial Judgment’ in ch. 2, Concerning the Principium of Theology, or Holy Scripture in Continuous Commentary on Johannes Marckius’ Didactico-Elenctic Compendium of Christian Theology Buy (Central, SC: From Reformation to Reformation Translations, 2018)

Quotes

Order of

Gillespie
Baxter
Savoy Conference
Manton, Bates, Case, etc.

1600’s

George Gillespie

A Dispute Against the English-Popish Ceremonies… ([Leiden] 1637)

Pt. 3, ch. 8, p. 137

“11. Do not our divines plead for this judgement of private discretion, which ought to be permitted to Christians, when anything is propounded to be believed or done by them? And this, their judgement, is to be seen in their writings against Papists about the controversies de interpretatione Scripturae, deside implicita, etc.”

Aaron’s Rod Blossoming... (London, 1646), bk. 2, ch. 8, ‘Of the Power and Privilege of the Magistrate in things and causes Ecclesiastical…’, p. 280

“Protestant writers… supposing it [1 Cor. 14:29, 32-33] to hold forth a binding authoritative judgment of the prophets, whereunto any one prophet is bound to be subject, the judgement of his private discretion being always reserved to him, that he give not blind obedience.”

111 Propositions Concerning the Ministry and Government of the Church (1647), Proposition 96

“…thereby it is sufficiently clear that they [magistrates] ought to cherish, and by their authority ought to establish, the ecclesiastical discipline; but yet not with implicit faith or blind obedience: For the Reformed Churches do not deny to any of the faithful, much less to the magistrate, the judgement of Christian prudence and discretion concerning those things which are decreed or determined by the Church.”

“As for the objection about our denying Church-government to the people… We give them the sum of what all moderate men desire, in giving them a judgment of discretion and freedom from all human enslaving of conscience.”

Leading English & Presbyterian Ministers

“1. A judgement is a sentence in order to some execution, and judgements are specified from the ends, to which they are such means. When the question is either what law shall be made or what penalty shall be exercised, the magistrate is the only judge, and not the bishop or other subject. In the first he exercises his judicium discretionis in order to a public act. In the second he exercises a public judgement.

[2.] When the question is, what order pro tempore is fittest in circumstantials for this present congregation; the proper presbyters or pastors of that congregation are the directive judges, by God’s appointment.

3. The magistrate is ruler of these pastors as he is of physicians, philosophers and other subjects. He may make them such general rules, especially for restraint, to go by, as may not destroy the exercise of their own pastoral power: As he may forbid a physician to use some dangerous medicine on his subjects, and may punish him when he willfully kills any of them: But may not on that presence appoint him what and how, and when, and to whom he shall administer, and so become physician himself alone.

4. When the question is, who shall be excluded from the communion of a particular church? The pastors of the church (or congregation) are the first proper judges.

5. When the question is, who shall be excluded from (or received into) the communion of all the associated churches, of which we are naturally capable of communion, the associated pastors or bishops of these churches in synods are judges; Beyond this there are no judges.

6. When the question is, whether the laws of magistrates, or canons of bishops are agreeable or not to the Word of God, and so the obedience is lawful or unlawful, the conscience of each individual subject is the judge, per judicium discretionis, as to his own practice; And if men had not this judgement of discerning, but must act upon absolute implicit obedience, then first man were ruled as unreasonable; secondly, the magistrate were made a God, or such a Leviathan as Hobbes describes him; thirdly, and then all sin might lawfully be committed, if commanded…”

Manton, Bates, Case, Baxter, Fairclough, etc.

The Judgment of Non-Conformists of the Interest of Reason in Matters of Religion in which it is Proved against Make-Baits that both Conformists & Non-Conformists, & All Parties of true Protestants are herein really agreed, though unskilful speakers differ in words (London: 1676), pp. 18-19 This was signed by 15 non-conformist English puritans.

“All Protestants disclaim that inhumane, atheistical assertion that in religion inferiors must believe all that their superiors assert, and do all that they shall command and avoid all that they shall forbid them, without using their own reason to discern judicio privato [by private judgment] whether it be agreeable or contrary to the laws of God:

As if all subjects must be of the sovereign’s religion, be it heathen, Mahometan, Jewish or Christian, Popish, Socinian or whatever: Or as if man were above God, from whom he receives all his power, and might command men to blaspheme Him or sin against Him, or forbid all to confess and worship Him; and God must ask men leave whether He shall be God or be obeyed, or worshipped!

And as if it were in the ruler’s power whether any of the subjects shall be religious or be saved? or as if subjects were not reasonable creatures, or could obey without the use of reason, discerning whom and how far to obey? If they have not a judicium discretionis [judgment of discretion] how shall they know their king whom they must obey, honour and protect, from an usurper or traitor whom they must disown and oppose.”

Historic Presbyterianism Never Requires Implicit or Blind Obedience

Quotes

Order of

Gillespie
Rutherford
London Presbyterians
Bannerman

1600’s

George Gillespie

An Assertion of the Government of the Church of Scotland (Edinburgh, 1641), Postscript, pp. 16-18

“And now I shall leave to be considered by wise men these vast differences betwixt the Papists’ implicit faith and the case of our [presbyterian] Churches governed by elderships:

1. The Church assents not to that which the consistory of elders decrees or does, except it be agreeing to the Word of God, as the Reasoner [Independent writer] himself says: but there is no such limitation in the Papists’ implicit faith.

2. The consistory [local session] of elders does not press anything upon the Church imperiously, or by naked will and authority, without any reason, as the Church of Rome does with those from whom she requires implicit faith.

3. The Papists know not what those things be which they believe by implicit faith: so that such a faith is rightly called mera articulorum fidei ignorantia, a mere ignorance of the articles of faith: but the decrees of our elderships whereunto our Churches do consent are made known unto them.

4. Our Churches are, by the judgement of Christian discretion, to examine all things propounded unto them, even the decrees of the elders, whereas Papists may not examine what the Church propounds or commands.

5. Papists, by their implicit faith, believe whatsoever the Church believes because they think the Church cannot err, but our Churches conceive not only their particular elderships, but ecumenical councils, to be subject to error.”

Samuel Rutherford

The Divine Right of Church Government (London, 1646)

Introduction, Section 2, p. 15

“For the Church does bind and loose in the external court, either by a commission from Him who as head of the Church, and who as King gave to her the keys of the Kingdom…”

London Provincial Assembly

A Vindication of the Presbyterial-Government & the Ministry… (London, 1650), pp. 23-24

“5. It is not a domineering hierarchical magisterial government that lords it over people’s consciences, requiring subjection to the decrees of it with blind and slavish obedience. But it is a stewardship, a ministry, a painful and laborious service. We say that all the determinations, even of national synods are to be obeyed no further than they agree with the Word of God. And that a synod is Judex judicandus [a judge being judged], that congregations are to examine with the judgment of discretion what is sent to them from synods. There is no more obedience required to the decrees of a national synod than the Independents claim to the decrees of a particular congregation.

6. It is not an arbitrary illimited government, but bounded and limited:

1. By the Word of God; for in this government everything is to be administered according to the pattern in the mount. We desire none to follow, but where the Word goes before.

2. By the civil magistrate, in regard of the exercise of it. For we acknowledge ourselves (as we have said) accountable to the civil magistrate, to punish us with civil mulcts, if we abuse our power.”

1800’s

James Bannerman

The Church of Christ, vol. 1 (Edinburgh, 1868), pp. 241-3

“Second, there are means of a most indispensable kind to be employed in the way of explanation and instruction, counsel and persuasion, to secure the convictions and concurrence of the private members of the Church, in whatever act or declaration the rulers, in the exercise of their judicial, or legislative, or administrative functions, may find it necessary for them to perform or to adopt.

Without the use of such means to carry the conscience and understanding of the members of the Church along with them in all that they do and declare, the office-bearers are not at liberty to use or enforce their peculiar power at all. And it is only when all such means have been employed and exhausted without effect, and when the members of the Church, so dealt with in the way of Christian persuasion and instruction, still refuse their concurrence, that it may be necessary and is lawful to use authority to strengthen the appeal, and to fall back upon the ultimate resource of all societies, — namely, the inherent right of the rulers to rule, and the no less inherent duty of the ruled to obey.

[Ruling against an errant conscience is only to occur after the rulers have set forth sufficient reasons for the convincing of the one with the errant conscience to obey moral law and truth. After this point, the one with the errant conscience has been shown that his conscience errs against truth and morality, and all persistence therein is truly a perverse contumacy against God’s truth and morality, not being founded on truth or morality.]

…

Fourth, there is yet another concession which it is necessary to make in regard to this matter, and which it is of some importance to note; and it is this, that the mere resistance to authority as authority alone, ought not to be made a ground for Church censure or punishment, when there is no moral or spiritual offence connected with the resistance.

Of course resistance to authority, even when that authority is put forth, as it sometimes may and must be, in enforcing a thing indifferent, may yet be associated with moral guilt on the part of those who indulge in it. Such resistance may arise out of feelings of hatred to all restraint, or opposition of a malignant kind to all authority ; it may become contumacy, and as such involve moral blame.

But until resistance to authority becomes in one way or other morally wrong, when the consent of the members to the act or deed of the rulers is withheld from no cause in itself sinful, such want of consent or concurrence ought to be dealt with on the principle of forbearance in things indifferent, and not be visited with censure or penalty of an ecclesiastical kind.”

Blind Obedience is a Mark of Romanism & Prelacy

Samuel Rutherford

Joshua Redivivus, or, Mr. Rutherford’s Letters… ([Rotterdam?, 1664]), ‘Christian Reader’, no page numbering

“…his [Christ’s] servants, who stood firm in their opposition to Prelacy… but if they will have patience to hear me to ‘Amen’ [at the end], I may possibly convince them of a truth they, are not willing to hear; for I not only grant that they have forgotten their Master’s directions, inhibiting them to to lift up themselves above their brethren…

they must have leave to put out mine and other men’s eyes besides (which we are not willing to give them; though if any man would gratify his Grace [the king], and their Lordships [the prelates], he must part with these in the first place; for an implicit faith is the basis and foundation of their Kingdom of darkness, without which it would fall about their ears and but overwhelm them in the rubbish… before this come so much as under debate, almost with indifferent men, whether God be angry at their way? His very giving of them up to persecute his people & servants, says nothing, if it say not this, that whatever be their outward prosperity, he has classed them with Pharaoh, in pouring out his plagues upon their heart…”

Blind Obedience Always Entails Blind Faith

Intro

Blind obedience always entails blind faith. If one is being required or requested to do something that goes against one’s conscience, having reasons not to do that action and having informed them that it is against one’s conscience, and no sufficient reasons are given to show that the action in those circumstances is lawful, then the only reason one has to do that action is because the person, organization, authority, etc. said so, or said that one’s reasons were insufficient.

In order to lawfully do that action, one would have to believe that one is wrong and one’s reasons are insufficient, with no other reason than that the person or authority said so. The person or authority is requiring or requesting blind faith in themselves so that you do the action. This is sinful, as it is sinful to knowingly require or request someone to do an action where sufficient reasons are not manifest to the person’s conscience, where the action cannot be done in faith to God (Rom. 14:23).

Even if one is not being required or requested to do something against one’s conscience, one ought not to do any action where one cannot see sufficient reason for it, as a requisite to the rightness of the action lies in apprehending such reasons, knowing that it is right to do unto the Lord in faith. To do a rational action apart from sufficient reason is to act blindly and at best in blind faith to the Lord, which is still wrong.

Lawful Commands might not be able to be Obeyed Lawfully

Mere Will & Determination of Authorities: Insufficient Grounds of Faith & Obedience, & Authorities are Not to Act or Require Something without Sufficient Natural, Moral or Spiritual Reasons, Manifest to Consciences

A Minimal Reason is Not a Sufficient Ground to a Yet Objecting Conscience

On Blind Faith

Quotes

Order of

Rutherford
Hoornbeek
Manton, Bates, Case, Baxter, Fairclough, etc.

1600’s

Samuel Rutherford

A Free Disputation Against Pretended Liberty of Conscience… (London [1649]), ch. 11, ‘Of the Obliging Power of Conscience’, p. 135 & passim

“Nor are we obliged to follow what our conscience says is true and good, because, or upon this formal reason and ground, that the conscience says so, more than we are to believe and practice what the Church or the conscience of others, [who are] the Church, the learned and godly, say; for we make not the word of the Church the formal object of our faith, but ‘thus saith the Lord’ only, because the Church is but a company of men and so our faith should depend upon men, even though holy and speaking ingenuously what their conscience dictates as true, which is absurd, ergo, by the same reason, what one man’s conscience, our own or others’ say, is not the formal object of our faith and practices, for so also our faith should depend on man, not on God.

And we say the conscience, at its best, is but regula regulata [a rule being regulated] not, regula regulans [a regulating rule], nor ought it to have the throne of God, for God is only Regula Regulans. If it were a rule, it is to be ruled by God and his Word, yea, as we are to try all things and not believe with a blind faith what others say, or their conscience proposes to themselves and us, as truth, for then we make a Pope of the consciences of men under the notion of teachers and Church; so we are not to be ruled without trying, and absolutely [ruled] by our own conscience, but to try its dictates by the Word of God, otherwise we make a Pope and a God of our own conscience.”

Johannes Hoornbeek

‘A Practical Theological Disputation on Sin, pt. 2’ tr. Onku with AI (Leiden: Johann Elsevir, 1660), Corollaries Latin

“V. Is faith an assent, not a knowledge, and better defined by ignorance than knowledge? No.”

‘Theological Disputation on Faith’ tr. Onku with AI (Leiden: Johann Elsevir, 1661) Latin

Manton, Bates, Case, Baxter, Fairclough, etc.

The Judgment of Non-Conformists of the Interest of Reason in Matters of Religion in which it is Proved against Make-Baits that both Conformists & Non-Conformists, & All Parties of true Protestants are herein really agreed, though unskilful speakers differ in words (London: 1676), p. 18 This was signed by 15 non-conformist English puritans.

“We all agree in rejecting the fore-described Papal fanaticism, which makes the Pope and council, though never so ignorant or erroneous, to be secured of the gift of infallibility, as if it were by miracle, in judging of that which their reasons are unmeet for and they do not understand, especially their foresaid feigned world of miracles by the (sottishest) priests in transubstantiation.

And especially their persecuting all that are not as unreasonable renouncers of common sense and reason, and deposing temporal lords that will not exterminate them. And their requiring all Christians to resolve their faith into the authority of this fanatic Church, as being bound to take that and only that for the articles of their Faith and Word of God which they assert to be so; and as needing no other proof than the Pope and his council’s assertion. (And on whose authority then does the Pope and council themselves believe it?)”

That Persons are not to Blindly Believe Preachers

Quotes

Order of

Rutherford
Bairdie
Poole

1600’s

Samuel Rutherford

‘A Sermon Preached before the Right Honorable House of Lords, in the Abbey Church at Westminster, Wed. the 25th day of June, 1645…’ (London, 1645), pp. 20-22

“…nor was it ever in our heart to teach… blind obedience… [such] would cast upon us the doctrine of Papists and Jesuits to make the ways of Christ odious, it has as great strength against the preaching of the Gospel; for if Paul or any faithful pastor preach to the magistrates of Berea that Christ, whom the Jews crucified, is the only Redeemer and Saviour of the world, and… they [magistrates] are not for that, with blind obedience to receive it and not to search the Scriptures to try whether that which is preached be agreeable to the Scriptures, nor to take it upon the bare authority of the preacher, but they are to search the Scriptures and obliged to believe the preached Gospel.

… as he [the magistrate] may as a Christian, try the word preached, so may he the same way try the decrees and determinations of the Church, and not take them upon blind trust…“

John Bairdie

Balm from Gilead, or the Differences about the Indulgence Stated & Impleaded in a Sober & Serious Letter to Ministers & Christians in Scotland (1674; London: Cockerill, 1681), pp. 169-70

Matthew Poole

Mr. Matthew Pool… his late sayings a little before his death, concerning the material points of the popish party charged against the Protestants, wherein the desperate tenets of popish Jesuitical principles are detected & solidly censured: for the settlement of all real professors and practical opposers of those damnable delusions, in a few words to the wise… (1679) no page number

“1. The felicity of Protestant professors is that they are not only permitted, but exhorted by their ministers not to take matters of salvation upon trust; but to search the Scriptures concerning truths delivered.”

Article

Ryle, J.C. – ‘The Fallibility of Ministers’

Ryle was a godly and evangelical, low church, Anglican minister.

On Citing the Works of Men as if They are the Last Word

Quote

400’s

Augustine

The Trinity, bk. 3, Prologue, Section 2

′′Don’t surrender to my writings as if they were canonical scriptures; believe these without hesitation even when you don’t understand what you believe; with respect to my writings I say: don’t put all faith when you are unsure unless you pass to be sure.

To my critics: Don’t put your writings righted by your opinion or prejudice, but supported by reading the Holy Scriptures or well founded reasons. If you find something true in them, that truth is not mine, but by understanding it and loving it is yours and mine; and if any falsehood you find, it is my mistake, but by avoiding it you make it neither yours nor mine.”

On Being a Servant of Christ, not of Men

Quote

1600’s

George Gillespie

A Dispute Against the English-Popish Ceremonies obtruded upon the Chuch of Scotland ([Leiden] 1637), pt. 4, ch. 3, pp. 10-11

“Moreover, as we may not use any indifferent thing at our own pleasure; so neither may the Church at her will and pleasure command the use of it: but as our practice, so the Church’s injunction must be determined and squared according to the former [three] rules [of using indifferent things (1) to the glory of God, (2) according to the law of charity and (3) purity of conscience]. And if any man think, that in the use of things indifferent he may be led and ruled by the Church’s determination without examining any further, let him understand that the Church’s determination is but a subordinate rule, or a rule ruled by higher rules.
…

He [Dr. Forbes] has been speaking of the rules which God’s Word gives us concerning the use of things indifferent, and all of them he comprehends under this rule, that we should hear the Church and obey them who are set over us, as if God’s rules were subordinate to men’s rules and not theirs to his. We say not that every man may use things indifferent suo arbitratu [according to his judgment]: but we say withal that neither may the Church command the use of things indifferent, suo arbitratu. Both, she in commanding and we in obeying, must be guided by the rules of Scripture.

They who are set over us in the Church have no power given them of Christ which is not for edifying, Eph. 4:12. The council of the apostles and elders at Jerusalem (which is a lively pattern of a lawful synod to the world’s end) professed they would lay no other burden upon the disciples except such things as the law of charity made necessary for shunning of scandal: and so that which they decreed had force and strength to bind, a Charitate propter Scandalum [from charity due to scandal], says Sanctius. But suo arbitratu [by their (mere) judgment] they enjoined nothing. It appears by this place (says [Thomas] Cartwright) that there may be no abridgment of liberty simply decreed, but in regard of circumstance, according to the rule of edification. And if the Church’s decrees and canons be not according to the rules of the Word, yet forasmuch as everyone of us shall give account of himself and his own deed, we must look that whatsoever the Church decree, yet our practice in the use or omission of a thing indifferent, be according to the foresaid rules.

We may not for the commandment of men transgress the rule of piety by doing anything which is not for God’s glory and ordered according to his will; neither ought any of us to obey men, except for the Lord’s sake and as the servants of Christ, doing the will of God; which teaches us the manner how we ought to obey men, namely, propter Christum et sicut Christus praecipit [for Christ, as Christ commands]. For if we should know no more but the will of man for that which we do, then we should be the servants of men, not the servants of Christ.

Neither yet may we for any human ordinance break the rule of charity: but whatsoever either would weaken or not edify our brother, be it never so lawful, never so profitable to ourselves, never so powerfully by earthly authority enjoined, Christians, who are not born unto themselves, but unto Christ, unto his Church and unto the fellow members, must not dare to meddle with it.

Nor lastly may we obey men so as to break the Law of Purity, and perform any action with a doubtful conscience, that is, whereof either the Word has not, or we out of it have no warrant: in which case tender consciences must be tendered, rather than be racked by authority: for be the things in themselves never so lawful, etc., they are utterly unlawful to me without such information.

Whereas therefore some say that in the use of matters indifferent, the laws of those who are set over us ought to rule us; we still answer that our practice may not be ruled by any law of man except it be according to the rules of the Word; whereof one is this: Tantum oportere esse obedientiae studium in Christianis, ut nihil agant, quod non existiment vel potius certi sint placere Deo [‘There ought to be in Christians such a care for obedience, that they do nothing, except what they think, or rather feel assured, is pleasing to God.’] (Calvin on Rom. 14:5).”

That Church Commands, Requirements & Determinations are Not to be Blindly Obeyed

Quotes

Order of

Burroughs
Rutherford

1600’s

Jeremiah Burroughs

The Excellency of a Gracious Spirit… (1639), p. 138-9

“…turbulent spirits do not love to examine things by rule, to call things to account, but follow their own fiery humor and set upon their own will with violence: but godliness takes off men from this ruggedness and turbulency of spirit and makes them gentle and peaceable: let them be never so active, never so forward, never so zealous in any thing, yet if you will call them to examine things by rule, they will meekly and patiently hear you; yea, a child shall lead them, Isa. 11:6.

And yet further; turbulent they are not, for none [are] more obedient to authority than they; none see that majesty of God in authority as they do; none obey authority out of conscience so as they do. If the will of men in authority, rather than authority, shall require anything that the authority of Heaven forbids, that they do not; because they cannot obey, for conscience sake: And so sacred do they account authority, that they would have no obedience performed to it, but obedience for conscience sake.

Blind obedience the Church of God has long ago exploded as too servile for Christian spirits: this were more servile than selling men’s bodies in the market for slaves, which Christianity abhors. It were too uncharitable a conceit of Christian magistrates, to think that they should require of, or expect from any other obedience than in, and for the Lord; and in this obedience, those who are godly, are so forward…”

Samuel Rutherford

A Survey of the Spiritual Antichrist… (London, 1648), ‘A Brotherly and Free Epistle…’, no page numbers

“But, 2. All the power and authority of synods we conceive to be ministerial, not lordly, limited, regulated by the only Word of God in the Scripture, and in matters circumstantial, of order and decency, as time, place, persons (observe I say not in mystical religions, ceremonies, called, but unjustly, ‘indifferent’, or the like) by the law of nature, rules of piety, charity, and Christian prudency, for the edification of our brethren and the glory of God;

and a lawful synod we judge has power ministerial from Christ to pass constitutions [in Greek] ‘decrees’, Acts 16:4 (‘laws’ I do not call them, because Christ is the only Lawgiver, King, and head of his Church, his officers are only servants and heralds to hold forth his laws) and these constitutions [or creeds and confessions] condemning Arminianism, Socinianism, Familism, Antinomianism, etc….

and commanding in the Lord that they consent to the form of sound doctrine, rebuking all that subvert souls, and trouble the Churches, Acts 15:23-24, are to be obeyed, and the conscience submitted to them, not absolutely, not for the sole will and mere authority of the heralds, as if they were infallible, not with blind obedience, not without reclamation, or appeal, if they be either contrary or beside the scriptures, but conditionally in so far as they are agreeable to the Word of God…”

That the Magistrate is not to Blindly Obey the Church in Enforcing in Sacra Matters Civilly by Circa Sacra in an Established Christian Nation

Samuel Rutherford

The Due Right of Presbtyeries... (1644), pt. 2, Appendix, Objection: ‘David also prepared materials for the Temple…’, p. 449

“2. Papists will have the magistrates so to defend the faith, as they have not power to judge [by way of jurisdiction in spiritual things], not [even] as Christians with the judgement of discretion, what is right or wrong, but they must, as blind servants, execute what Prelates decree, yea and see (non propriis (says Henry Blyssemius) sed alienis Episcoporum ac praelatorum suorum oculis videre) ‘not with their own eyes, but with the eyes of their Prelates,’ yea and the magistrate should not read the Scripture (say Papists and Nicanor’s brethren, the Jesuits), [which is] expressly contrary to God’s Word, Dt. 17:17, ‘He shall read in the book of the Law all the days of his life,’ Josh. 1:8, but only believe as the Church believes, and this is blind obedience that they require of princes; this faith or obedience we think abominable in all men, as [also] in princes.”

‘A Sermon Preached before the Right Honorable House of Lords, in the Abbey Church at Westminster, Wed. the 25th day of June, 1645…’ (London, 1645), pp. 20-22

“…nor was it ever in our heart to teach that the Christian magistrate is with blind obedience to execute the decrees of the Church; for this poor argument, if it have any nerves, as it would cast upon us the doctrine of Papists and Jesuits to make the ways of Christ odious, it has as great strength against the preaching of the Gospel; for if Paul or any faithful pastor preach to the magistrates of Berea that Christ, whom the Jews crucified, is the only Redeemer and Saviour of the world, and that therefore they are, as nurse-fathers, to give liberty to the servants of God, to preach this doctrine and to hinder any to persecute such as shall preach this doctrine, yet by their civil authority, and ex officio [out of their office], they are not for that, with blind obedience to receive it and not to search the Scriptures to try whether that which is preached be agreeable to the Scriptures, nor to take it upon the bare authority of the preacher, but they are to search the Scriptures and obliged to believe the preached Gospel.

But not as magistrates [are they] either to preach themselves, or to judge authoritatively by virtue of their office, whether the preacher’s doctrine be the Gospel of Christ or no[t]: so if a synod, by the Holy Ghost and the light of Scriptures, determine anything for discipline or censure, the magistrate, as he may as a Christian, try the word preached, so may he the same way try the decrees and determinations of the Church, and not take them upon blind trust and accordingly punish the contraveners [to the Church’s decrees] as a magistrate, and as he is the minister of God that bears his sword; but yet he can no more as a magistrate, and by his office, prescribe such ecclesiastic laws (as wee have [in] Acts 15:28; 16:4) unto the Churches of God, or as a magistrate and by his office judge them unlawful and forbid them, than he can preach the word, or say it seemed good to the Holy Ghost [Acts 15:28] and to me who bears the sword, to command that the Churches observe such and such laws.”

The Divine Right of Church Government… (1646), pp. 595-9

“They [Romanists] write that magistrates do not see in Church-matters with their own eyes, but with bishops’ eyes, and that they must obey without examining the decrees of councils; and this they write of all subject to the Church; Toletus in Instruct (Sacerdot., bk. 4, ch. 3):

“Si Rusticus circa articulos fidei credat suo episcopo proponenti-aliquod dogma hereticum, mor•tur in credendo, licet sit error.”

Cardinal Cusanus (excit., bk. 6, sermon):

“Obedientia irrationalis est consumata et perfectissima obedientia sicut Iumentum obedit domino.”

Ibid.:

“Sententia pastoris ligat te, pro tua salute, etiam si injusta fuerit.“

Envy cannot ascribe this to us; Calvin, Beza, yea, all our writers condemn blind obedience as brutish.
…

But that the magistrate is not obliged to execute the decrees of the Church without further examination, whether they be right or wrong, as Papists teach that the magistrate is to execute the decrees of their Popish councils with blind obedience and submit his faith to them, because he is a layman and may not dare to examine whether the Church does err or not, is clear:

1. Because if in hearing the Word all should follow the example of the men of Berea, not relying on the testimony of Paul or any preacher, try whether that which concerns their conscience and faith be agreeable to the Scriptures or no, and accordingly receive or reject; so in all things of discipline, the Magistrate is to try by the Word whether he ought to add his sanction to these decrees which the Church gives out for edification and whether he should draw the sword against such a one as a heretic and a perverter of souls:

But the former is true: the magistrate’s practice in adding his civil sanction and in punishing heretics concerns his conscience, knowing that he must do it in faith as he does all his moral actions; Ergo [Therefore], the magistrate must examine what he practices in his office, according to the Word, and must not take it upon the mere authority of the Church, else his faith in these moral acts of his office should be resolved ultimately on the authority of the Church, not on the Word of God, which no doubt is Popery; for so the warrant of the magistrate’s conscience should not be, ‘Thus saith the Lord,’ but ‘Thus saith the Church in their decrees.’

2. The magistrate and all men have a command to try all things; Ergo, to try the decrees of the Church and to retain what is good, 1 Thess. 5:21, to try the spirits even of the Church, in their decrees, 1 Jn. 3:1.

3. We behooved to lay down this Popish ground, that 1. The Church cannot err in their decrees. 2. It’s against Scripture and reason that magistrates, and by the like reason, all others, should obey the decrees of the Church with a blind faith, without inquiring in the warrants and grounds of their decrees, which is as good Popery as magistrates and all men are to believe as the Church believes with an implicit faith; so ignorance shall be the mother of devotion; Whoever impute[s] this to us, who have suffered for non-conformity, and upon this ground, that synods can err, [and have] refused the ceremonies, are to consult with their own conscience whether this be not to make us appear disloyal and odious to magistracy in that which we never thought, far less to teach and profess it to the world.

4. Their chief reason is: The magistrate by our doctrine, by his office, is obliged:

1. To follow the judgment of the Church, and in that he is a servant or enslaved: Qui enim judicia aliorum sequi tenetur, is non regit, sed regitur, adeoque servus est, & mancipium brutum eorum, quorum judicium sequi obligatur, and the magistrate (say they), as such, is neither to judge nor try what the Church decrees, but as a burrio, or hangman, [is] to execute that which the Church has decreed.

But 1. I put it in form and retort it thus: They are servants and slaves who are obliged not to despise, but to hear and obey and so to follow the judgement of the prophets, the faithful pastors of Christ, preaching the Word of God soundly and orthodoxly. But not only magistrates, but all within the visible Church are obliged not to despise, but to hear and obey and so to follow the judgment of the prophets, the faithful pastors of Christ preaching the Word of God soundly and orthodoxly; Ergo, magistrates and all within the visible Church are slaves and servants.

But the conclusion is absurd; Ergo, some of the premises [are absurd]; but the assumption is the Word of God: Judah was carried captive because they would not hear the prophets rising early in the morning and speaking to them. Also in the New Testament, this is true to the second coming of Christ: ‘He that heareth you, heareth me, he that despiseth you, despiseth me.’

And this, he that will not obey the servant of the supreme magistrate in that wherein he is a servant and holds forth the lawful commands of the supreme magistrate, he will not obey the supreme magistrate. The major proposition is the adversaries’; the assumption is express Scripture; let them see then to the conclusion.

2. When the adversary shall answer this argument with equal strength made against preaching and hearing the Word, they will answer their own argument made against Church-government.

3. This argument is made against synods-Popish, that cannot err, as our protestant divines object; and therefore the adversary is Popish here, not we. Thus they are servants and slaves who are obliged to follow the judgment of councils absolutely, without limitation; and because they say it, whether they warrant their decrees by the Word of God or not, that is a true major proposition: But now the assumption is most false, for neither magistrates nor any other are to follow the judgment of the Church absolutely, without limitation, and because they say it.

The other part is, they are servants and slaves who are to follow the judgement of the Church and councils with a reserve and a condition and limitation, insofar as they agree with the Word; now the major [premise] is false.

2. He that is obliged to follow the judgement of another does not rule, but is ruled; true, in that in which he follows the judgment of another. The magistrate, insofar as in matters of religion that concern his conscience, faith and practice, he follows pastors; he is not a ruler formally to those whose judgement he is obliged to follow. But in civil matters he may be, and is, a ruler to those same; for we answer to Papists who by this same argument would prove that Church-men are not subject to the magistrate, nor to civil laws: He that is a sheep is not to rule and command his shepherd; but the magistrate is a sheep and a member of the Church, and pastors and doctors are shepherds. We answer, in diverse considerations a magistrate as a magistrate in civil things, is not ruled by pastors and doctors, but he is to rule them: But a magistrate as a member of the Church, as a Christian in things that concern his conscience, is a sheep and to be ruled, [and he is] not a ruler to pastors and doctors, and so here; and therefore, non concluditur quod est [that is not concluded]…”

That the Magistrate is Not to Exact Blind Obedience from People in Matters of Religion

Samuel Rutherford

The Divine Right of Church Government... (1646), p. 550

“But magistrates as magistrates hold forth in their law-abstinence from those same sins of adultery, incest, murder…

2. Not under the pain of eternal wrath and condemnation, before the Judge of [the] quick and [the] dead: Magistrates as magistrates have neither calling, office, place nor power to threaten or inflict eternal punishment; if magistrates do persuade the equity of abstinence from adultery, incest, murder in their statutes or acts of parliament from the Word of God, from the sixth and seventh command[ments] of the Decalogue, from the Judgment and eternal punishment that follows these sins, they so persuade not as magistrates [from their office per se], but as divines and as godly and Christian men;

Yet my sense is not that the magistrate can lawfully command obedience in matters of religion not understood or known by the subjects: that were to exact blind obedience; but my meaning is that the magistrate as the magistrate holds not forth his commandments to teach and inform the conscience, as pastors do, but he presupposes that his mandates are known to be agreeable to the Word of God, and proposes them to the subjects to be obeyed.”

With Regard to War

Samuel Rutherford

Lex Rex... (1644), Question 36, ‘Whether the Power of War be Only in the King?’, p. 378

“Objection 4. The causes of war (says Mr. Simmons, sect. 4, p. 9) should not be made known to the subjects, who are to look more to the lawful call to war from the prince than to the cause of the war.

[Rutherford’s] Answer:

[1.] The parliament and all the judges and nobles are subjects to Royalists, if they should make war and shed blood upon blind obedience to the king, not inquiring either in causes of law or fact; they must resign their consciences to the king.

2. The king cannot make unlawful war to be lawful by any authority-royal, except he could raze out the Sixth Commandment [of the Decalogue]: therefore subjects must look more to the causes of war than to the authority of the king; and this were a fair way to make parliaments of both kingdoms [England and Scotland] set up Popery by the sword, and root out the Reformed religion upon the king’s authority [as was being done at the time of Rutherford writing], as the lawful call to war, not looking to the causes of war.”

Latin

Articles

Baron, Robert – 3rd Exercitation, ‘Of Faith, Knowledge [Scientia] & Opinion’,Article 5, ‘Of the Division of Faith into Explicit & Implicit, and Whether that which is Not Evident, which we Yield to Faith, Makes for the Blind & Implicit Faith of the Papists’ in Of Philosophy, Serving as the Handmaid of Theology, a Pius & Sober Explication of Philosophical Questions Subjoined as they Occur in Theological Disputations (Andreapoli, 1621)

Baron (1596–1639) was one of the Scottish, Aberdeen Doctors. He was generally in the reformed tradition, though was an Amyrauldian and had other broadening characteristics in his theology.

Baron gives references to where this topic is discussed in Lombard, Tilen, Durandus & Estium.

Voet, Gisbert – Select Theological Disputations (Amsterdam: Jansson, 1667), vol. 4

16. ‘On the Blind Obedience of the Papists’, pt. 1 182
17. pt. 2 194-206

Book

1600’s

Rivet, Andrew – The Mysteries of the Jesuit Fathers out of their own Writings, Rooted Out with Faith, in which is set forward the Rise and Deification of Ignatius of Loyola, the Dogmas of the Society about Blind Obedience, the Power of the Pope in the Persons & Stations of Kings & Princes, the Sealing of a Confession in Order to Serve the Faith, Equivocations, etc. (Lampropoli, 1633)

Rivet (1572-1651)

“Be ye not as the horse, or as the mule, which have no understanding…”

Ps. 32:9

“Ye are bought with a price; be not ye the servants of men.”

1 Cor. 7:23

“Now the Lord had said unto Abram, ‘Get thee out of thy country… unto a land that I will show thee… So Abram departed, as the Lord had spoken unto him…”

Gen. 12:1-4

On Positive Laws & Ordinances

On the Ordinances, Order & Policy of the Church

On Arbitrary Laws & Commands

On Passive Obedience

On Faith

Resistance to Tyranny

On Fleeing from Danger

One May Miss Services & Leave a Church due to Providence without Permission, & a Letter of Transfer is Not Necessary

Reformed Books Online

Free, Biblical, Reformed, Historic Books & Articles Online

On Implicit, or Blind Faith & Obedience