Institutes of the Christian Religion (Vol. 2 of 2)
XV. To prevent any one from falling into this error, let us
therefore consider, in the first place, that man is under two kinds
of government—one spiritual, by which the conscience is
formed to piety and the service of God; the other political, by
which a man is instructed in the duties of humanity and civility,
which are to be observed in an intercourse with mankind.
They are generally, and not improperly, denominated the
spiritual and the temporal jurisdiction; indicating that the
former species of government pertains to the life of the soul, and
that the latter relates to the concerns of the present state; not
only to the provision of food and clothing, but to the enactment
of laws to regulate a man’s life among his neighbours by the
rules of holiness, integrity, and sobriety. For the former has its
seat in the interior of the mind, whilst the latter only directs
the external conduct: one may be termed a spiritual kingdom,
and the other a political one. But these two, as we have distinguished
them, always require to be considered separately;
and while the one is under discussion, the mind must be abstracted
from all consideration of the other. For man contains,
as it were, two worlds, capable of being governed by various
rulers and various laws. This distinction will prevent what
the gospel inculcates concerning spiritual liberty from being
misapplied to political regulations; as though Christians were
less subject to the external government of human laws, because
their consciences have been set at liberty before God; as
though their freedom of spirit necessarily exempted them from
all carnal servitude. Again, because even in those constitutions
which seem to pertain to the spiritual kingdom, there may
possibly be some deception, it is necessary to discriminate
between these also; which are to be accounted legitimate, as
according with the Divine word, and which, on the contrary,
ought not to be received among believers. Of civil government
I shall treat in another place. Of ecclesiastical laws
also I forbear to speak at present; because a full discussion of
them will be proper in the Fourth Book, where we shall treat
of the power of the Church. But we shall conclude the present
argument in the following manner: The question, which, as I
have observed, is in itself not very obscure or intricate, greatly
perplexes many, because they do not distinguish with sufficient
precision between the external jurisdiction and the court of
conscience. The difficulty is increased by Paul’s injunction to
obey magistrates “not only for wrath, but also for conscience’
sake;”[254]
from which it should follow, that the conscience also
is bound by political laws. But if this were true, it would
supersede all that we have already said, or are now about to
say, respecting spiritual government. For the solution of this
difficulty, it will be of use, first, to know what conscience is.
And the definition of it must be derived from the etymology of
the word. For as, when men apprehend the knowledge of
things in the mind and understanding, they are thence said
scire, “to know,” whence is derived the word scientia,
“science” or “knowledge;” so when they have a sense of
Divine justice, as an additional witness, which permits them
not to conceal their sins, or to elude accusation at the tribunal
of the supreme Judge, this sense is termed conscientia, “conscience.”
For it is a kind of medium between God and man;
because it does not suffer a man to suppress what he knows
within himself, but pursues him till it brings him to conviction.
This is what Paul means by “their conscience also bearing
witness, and their thoughts accusing, or else excusing, one
another.”[255]
Simple knowledge might remain, as it were,
confined within a man. This sentiment, therefore, which
places man before the Divine tribunal, is appointed, as it were,
to watch over man, to observe and examine all his secrets, that
nothing may remain enveloped in darkness. Hence the old
proverb, Conscience is as a thousand witnesses. For the same
reason Peter speaks of “the answer of a good conscience
towards God,”[256]
to express our tranquillity of mind, when,
persuaded of the favour of Christ, we present ourselves with
boldness in the presence of God. And the author of the
Epistle to the Hebrews expresses absolution or freedom from
every future charge of sin, by “having no more conscience
of sin.”[257]
XVI. Therefore, as works respect men, so conscience regards
God; so that a good conscience is no other than inward integrity
of heart. In which sense Paul says, that “the end of
the commandment is charity, out of a pure heart, and of a good
conscience, and of faith unfeigned.”[258]
Afterwards also, in
the same chapter, he shows how widely it differs from understanding,
saying, that “some, having put away a good conscience,
concerning faith have made shipwreck.”[259]
For
these words indicate that it is a lively inclination to the service
of God, and a sincere pursuit of piety and holiness of life.
Sometimes, indeed, it is likewise extended to men; as when
the same apostle declares, “Herein do I exercise myself, to
have always a conscience void of offence toward God and
toward men.”[260]
But the reason of this assertion is, that the
fruits of a good conscience reach even to men. But in strict
propriety of speech it has to do with God alone, as I have
already observed. Hence it is that a law, which simply binds
a man without relation to other men, or any consideration of
them, is said to bind the conscience. For example, God not
only enjoins the preservation of the mind chaste and pure from
every libidinous desire, but prohibits all obscenity of language
and external lasciviousness. The observance of this law is incumbent
on my conscience, though there were not another man
existing in the world. Thus he who transgresses the limits of
temperance, not only sins by giving a bad example to his
brethren, but contracts guilt on his conscience before God.
Things in themselves indifferent are to be guided by other
considerations. It is our duty to abstain from them, if they
tend to the least offence, yet without violating our liberty of
conscience. So Paul speaks concerning meat consecrated to
idols: “If any man say unto you, This is offered in sacrifice
to idols, eat not for conscience’ sake; conscience, I say, not
thine own, but of the other.”[261]
A pious man would be guilty
of sin, who, being previously admonished, should, nevertheless,
eat such meat. But though, with respect to his brother,
abstinence is necessary for him, as it is enjoined by God, yet
he ceases not to retain liberty of conscience. We see, then,
how this law, though it binds the external action, leaves the
conscience free.
