08. 8. Obedience to Men

8. Obedience to Men Query 6: Are Christians freed from obedience to men?

Two Kinds of Subjection

Before I answer this query, I must say that some places in Scripture seem to say that it does not stand with Christian liberty to be obedient to men. We find in Scripture (as I showed at the beginning of this treatise) a double charge: 1. That man must not usurp the mastership. 2. That he must not undergo servitude. Thus we read in Matthew 23:9-10 : ’Be not ye called Rabbi, for one is your Master, even Christ, and all ye are brethren. And call no man your father upon the earth; for one is your Father, which is in heaven.’ Aquinas comments on this verse: ’It is forbidden to men to address rulers as attributing to them a supremacy of rule which enters into rivalry with the rule of God.’ We read again in 1 Corinthians 7:23 : Ye are bought with a price; be ye not the servants of men’, which indicates that we are not to undergo servitude. On the other hand, and seemingly in contradiction to this, we read in Romans 13:1 : ’Let every soul be subject to the higher powers. For there is no power but of God; the powers that be are ordained of God.’ And again in 1 Peter 2:13-15 : ’Submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord’s sake, whether it be to the king as supreme; or unto governors.... As free and not using your liberty for a cloak of maliciousness, but as the servants of God.’

Now how shall we reconcile these two kinds of Scriptures? One says, ’Be ye not the servants of men’; the other says, ’Submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord’s sake’. But the meaning is that we must submit ourselves to the authority of man in such a way that we do not thereby deny our Christian liberty which we have in Christ. And we must maintain our Christian liberty in such a way that we do not, as if making an excuse of our liberty, neglect our Christian duty. Submit yourselves, says the apostle, but as free, not as slaves. As freemen, still submit. He teaches no submission which would contradict Christian freedom. In brief, then, there is a twofold subjection to man: 1. There is a subjection which may be yielded with the preservation of our Christian liberty; 2. There is a subjection which cannot be yielded without a denial of it. The first of these is implied in the verses just quoted from Romans and i Peter, the second in the verses from Matthew and i Corinthians. The one pertains to the subjection of the outward man in things lawful; the other pertains to the subjection of the inward man, the soul and conscience, and in things unlawful. The one is a subordinate subjection, a subjection in subordination to God, and so ’for the Lord’s sake’, as Peter says. The other is an absolute subjection, a subjection of our souls and consciences, for man’s sake. To man’s authority we may be subject in respect of the outward man in things lawful. But for our souls and consciences, we have no fathers and masters, but only our Father and Master in heaven.

We see both of these positions plainly if we compare Matthew 23:10 with Ephesians 5:7. The one reads: ’Be not ye called masters, for one is your Master, even Christ; and the other: ’Servants, be obedient to your masters according to the flesh’. The distinction is here made between masters according to the flesh and masters according to the spirit. The former appertain to the outward man in outward things. But on earth we have no masters according to the spirit, none to whom we are to subject our souls and consciences, but only Christ. As, in this sense, We have no father, so we have no master upon earth.

Obedience to the Civil Magistrate But it may be objected: Is it not lawful for a magistrate to impose actions upon men which concern their consciences? I answer: It is not lawful for a magistrate to impose anything upon a Christian which it would not be lawful in the eyes of God for him to obey; that is, to set up an authority against Christ’s authority, the power of man against the power of God. But a magistrate may require those things at our hands which are clearly revealed to be the will of God. In this we obey God in man, and not so much man as God. In this case we may say as the Samaritans said: ’Now we believe, not because of thy sayings, but because we have heard him ourselves.’

I conceive there may be a distinction drawn between supreme masters and subordinate masters; and between subjection rendered to a master who is himself subject to another, and obedience rendered to one who is supreme and absolute. Those are subordinate masters whom we obey in order that we may obey a higher authority; and those are supreme masters in whom obedience rests and in whom it is finally resolved. The Romish doctrine requires absolute submission to the authority of the Church, an authority which neither men nor angels may usurp without high treason to Jesus Christ. Says Bellarmine: you are ignorant and unskilled; therefore if you wish to be saved, there is no other course open to you but to render a blind obedience to our authority.’ We repeat that it is treason for any to usurp this authority and wickedness for any to yield to it. If God will not allow a supreme master, neither absolute obedience, in temporal things, but requires us to serve men in subordination to Christ (Ephesians 6:7 and Colossians 3:23-24), much less will He allow of a supreme master in spiritual things. Certainly it is the highest piece of slavery and vassalage in the world to yield up our consciences to the will of any man, or surrender our judgments to be wholly disposed by the sentences and determinations of others. But in the other sense I conceive that men may be masters, and that we may be subject to them in subordination to God and Christ.

If we look into the Old Testament we find that it plainly sets forth the subordinate character of obedience in things spiritual. The people were bound to obey the magistrates when they commanded obedience to that which God had commanded, and to obey them, not as they were types of Christ, but as they were temporal magistrates and were set to defend the worship of God. Some have imagined that the power of magistrates, leading up to Christ, was to cease when Christ came, who is the great King of His Church, and in whom alone all authority over His people was to be confined, but I do not conceive it so. I conceive that a magistrate, without any trespassing on the authority of Christ, or infringement of the liberty of conscience of the Christian, may require those things to be obeyed which are clearly revealed to be the will and mind of Christ. Yet in this he is but a subordinate, and Christ is the supreme Master. The magistrate tells us what is God’s will, not what is his will. He tells us it is his will, too, but only because it is God’s will first. But it may be objected again that, though a magistrate may command or impose things which are clearly evident to be the mind of Christ, yet it is possible for him to seek to impose things of more doubtful obligation. I answer that it should be inquired whether the things imposed are doubtful in themselves, or only doubtful to me. If indeed they be doubtful in themselves, I humbly conceive, either that they should not be imposed at all, or else imposed with all tenderness. But if they be only doubtful to me, they may yet be lawfully imposed, though as yet not lawfully obeyed by me. My meaning is this: As some things may be lawfully obeyed, which may not be lawfully imposed, so there are some things which may be lawfully imposed, and yet not lawfully obeyed. Hezekiah’s command to break the brazen serpent when he found men idolizing it, was a lawful command which might be lawfully imposed; and yet, if there had been some who had reverential thoughts of it, as a thing which had been set up by God, which had been famous in the wilderness, and moreover which was a type of Christ, and who therefore doubted whether it was right to obey the king’s command, I say, in this case it could not have been lawfully obeyed by such, even though the destruction of the brazen serpent was lawfully commanded by Hezekiah.

Certainly, there are many things which may be commanded; and if we have respect merely to the things commanded, they may be lawfully obeyed; but if we have respect to the person who is required to obey, it may be unlawful to him to obey. In this case a man may both sin in doing, for he has an evil conscience in the matter, and he may sin in not doing, for he is guilty of disobedience.

We might become involved in a great dispute on this subject, which it is not my intention to do at this time. It may be possible in some other discourse to treat more largely upon it, and to endeavour to give a satisfactory answer to the multitude of scruples and objections in which this subject, almost more than any other, abounds. But as I have now answered the main queries which have been raised and which are in controversy concerning Christian freedom, I shall conclude the whole with a brief application.