Chapter 19: Of Christian Liberty

Now we must treat of Christian liberty: the declaration of which he must not omit whose purpose is to comprehend in an abridgment the sum of the doctrine of the Gospel. For it is a thing principally necessary, and without the knowledge of which consciences dare in a manner enterprise nothing without doubting, they stumble and start back in many things, they always stagger and tremble: but especially it is an appendant of justification, and avails not a little to the understanding of the strength thereof. Indeed they that earnestly fear God, shall hereby receive an incomparable fruit of that doctrine which the wicked and Lucianic men do pleasantly taunt with their scoffs, because in the spiritual darkness by which they are taken, every wanton railing is lawful for them. Therefore it shall now come forth in fit season: and it was profitable to defer to this place the plainer discoursing of it, (for we have already in various places lightly touched it) because as soon as any mention is brought in of Christian liberty, then either filthy lusts do boil, or mad motions do arise, unless these wanton wits be timely met withal, which do otherwise most wickedly corrupt the best things. For, some men by pretense of this liberty, shake off all obedience of God, and break forth into an unbridled licentiousness: and some men disdain it, thinking that by it all moderation, order and choice of things is taken away. What should we here do, being compassed in such narrow straits? Shall we bid Christian liberty farewell, and so cut off all fit occasion for such perils? But, as we have said, unless it be fast held, neither Christ, nor the truth of the Gospel, nor the inward peace of the soul is rightly known. Rather we must endeavor that so necessary a part of doctrine be not suppressed, and yet that in the mean time those fond objections may be met withal which are wont to rise thereupon.

Christian liberty (as I think) consists in three parts. The first, that the consciences of the faithful, when the assurance of their justification before God is to be sought, may raise and advance themselves above the law, and forget the whole righteousness of the law. For since the law (as we have already in another place declared) leaves no man righteous: either we are excluded from all hope of justification, or we must be loosed from the law, and so that there be no regard at all had of works. For whoever thinks that he must bring somewhat, be it never so little of good works, to obtain righteousness, he can not appoint any end or measure of them, but makes himself debtor to the whole law. Therefore taking away all mention of the law, and laying aside all thinking upon works, we must embrace the only mercy of God, when we treat of justification: and turning away our sight from ourselves, we must behold Christ alone. For there the question is not how we are righteous: but how although we are unrighteous and unworthy, we are taken for worthy. Of which thing if consciences will attain any certainty, they must give no place to the law. Neither can any man hereby gather that the law is superfluous to the faithful, whom it does not therefore cease to teach and exhort, and prick forward to goodness, although before the judgment seat of God it has no place in their consciences. For these two things, as they are most diverse, so must be well and diligently distinguished by us. The whole life of Christians ought to be a certain meditation of godliness, because they are called into sanctification. Herein stands the office of the law, that by putting them in mind of their duty, it should stir them up to the endeavor of holiness and innocence. But when consciences are careful how they may have God merciful, what they shall answer, and upon what assurance they shall stand if they are called to his judgment, there is not to be reckoned what the law requires, but only Christ must be set forth for righteousness, which surpasses all perfection of the law.

Upon this point hangs almost all the argument of the Epistle to the Galatians. For, that they are fond expositors which teach that Paul there contends only for the liberty of ceremonies, may be proved by the places of the arguments. Of which sort are these: That Christ was made a curse for us, that he might redeem us from the curse of the law. Again, Stand fast in the liberty by which Christ has made you free, and be not again entangled with the yoke of bondage. Behold, I Paul say, if you are circumcised, Christ shall nothing profit you. And he which is circumcised is debtor of the whole law. Christ is made idle to you whoever you are that are justified by the law: you are fallen away from grace. Wherein truly is contained some higher thing than the liberty of ceremonies. I grant indeed that Paul there treats of ceremonies, because he contends with the false Apostles, which went about to bring again into the Christian Church the old shadows of law which were abolished by the coming of Christ. But for the discussing of this question, there were higher places to be disputed, in which the whole controversy stood. First because by those Jewish shadows the brightness of the gospel was darkened, he shows that we have in Christ a full and certain gift of all those things which were shadowed by the ceremonies of Moses. Secondly, because these deceivers filled the people with a most wicked opinion, namely that this obedience availed to deserve the favor of God: here he stands much upon this point, that the faithful should not think that they can by any works of the law, much less by those little principles, obtain righteousness before God. And therewith he teaches, that they are by the cross of Christ free from the damnation of the law, which otherwise hangs over all men, that they should with full assuredness rest in Christ alone. Which place properly pertains to this purpose. Last of all he maintains to the consciences of the faithful their liberty, that they should not be bound with any religion in things not necessary.

The second part, which hangs upon that former part, is that consciences obey the law, not as compelled by the necessity of the law: but being free from the yoke of the law itself, of their own accord they obey the will of God. For, because they abide in perpetual terrors, so long as they be under the dominion of the law, they shall never be with cheerful readiness framed to the obedience of God, unless they first have this liberty given them. By an example we shall both more briefly and more plainly perceive what these things mean. The commandment of the law is, that we love our God with all our heart, with all our soul, with all our strengths. That this may be done, our soul must first be made void of all other sense and thought, our heart must be cleansed of all desires, all our strengths must be gathered up and drawn together to this only purpose. They which have gone most far before others in the way of the Lord, are yet very far from this mark. For though they love God with their mind, and with sincere affection of heart, yet they have still a great part of their heart and soul possessed with the desires of the flesh, by which they are drawn back and stayed from going forward with hasty course to God. They do indeed strive forward with great endeavor: but the flesh partly weakens their strengths, and partly draws them to itself. What shall they here do, when they feel that they do nothing less than perform the law? They will, they covet, they endeavor, but nothing with such perfection as ought to be. If they look upon the law, they see that whatever work they attempt or purpose, is accursed. Neither is there any cause why any man should deceive himself with gathering that the work is therefore not altogether evil, because it is imperfect: and therefore that God does nevertheless accept that good which is in it. For, the law requiring perfect love, condemns all imperfection, unless the rigor of it be mitigated. Therefore his works should fall to nothing which he would have to seem partly good: and he shall find that it is a transgression of the law, even in this because it is imperfect (Deuteronomy 6:5).

Look, how all our works are subject to the curse of the law, if they be measured by the rule of the law. But how should then unhappy souls cheerfully apply themselves to work, for which they might not trust that they could get anything but curse? On the other side, if being delivered from this severe exacting of the law, or rather from the whole rigor of the law, they hear that they be called of God with fatherly gentleness: they will merrily and with great cheerfulness answer his calling and follow his guiding. In sum, they which are bound to the yoke of the law, are like to [reconstructed: hired servants], to whom are appointed by their lords certain tasks of work for every day. These servants think that they have done nothing, nor dare come into the sight of their lords, unless they have performed the full task of their works. But children, which are more liberally and more freemanlike handled of their fathers, do not hesitate to present to them their begun and half imperfect works, yes and those having some fault, trusting that they will accept their obedience and willingness of mind, although they have not exactly done so much as their good will was to do. So must we be as may have sure confidence, that our obediences shall be allowed of our most kind father, however little, and however rough and imperfect they may be. As also he assures to us by the prophet: I will spare them (says he) as the father is wont to spare his son that serves him (Malachi 3:17). Where this word Spare, is set for to bear with all, or gently to wink at faults, inasmuch as he also makes mention of service. And this confidence is not a little necessary for us, without which we shall go about all things in vain. For God considers himself to be worshipped with no work of ours but which is truly done of us for the worshipping of him. But how can that be done among these terrors, where it is doubted whether God be offended or worshipped with our work?

And that is the cause why the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews, refers all the good works that are read of in the holy fathers, to faith, and weighs them only by faith. Touching this liberty there is a place in the Epistle to the Romans, where Paul reasons that sin ought not to have dominion over us, because we are not under the law, but under grace. For when he had exhorted the faithful that sin should not reign in their mortal body, and that they should not give their members to be weapons of wickedness to sin, but should dedicate themselves to God, as they that are alive from the dead, and their members, weapons of righteousness to God: and whereas they might on the other side object that they do yet carry with them the flesh full of lusts, and that sin dwells in them, he adjoins that comfort by the liberty of the law, as if he should say. Though they do not yet thoroughly feel sin destroyed and the righteousness yet lives not in them, yet there is no cause why they should fear and be discouraged as though they had been always displeased with them for the remnants of sin, inasmuch as they are by grace made free from the law, that their works should not be examined by the rule of the law. As for them that gather that we may sin because we are not under the law, let them know that this liberty pertains nothing to them, the end of which is to encourage to God.

The third part is, that we be bound with no conscience before God of outward things which are by themselves indifferent, but that we may indifferently sometimes use them, and sometimes leave them unused. And the knowledge of this liberty also is very necessary for us: for if it shall be absent, there shall be no quiet to our consciences, no end of superstitions. Many at this day do think us foolish to move disputation about the free eating of flesh, about the free use of days, and garments and such other small trifles as they indeed think them: but there is more weight in them than is commonly thought. For when consciences have once cast themselves into the snare, they enter into a long and cumbersome way, from which they can afterward find no easy way to get out. If a man begin to doubt whether he may use linen in sheets, shirts, handkerchiefs, and napkins, neither will he be out of doubt whether he may use hemp, and at last he will also fall in doubt of matters, for he will weigh with himself whether he cannot sup without napkins, whether he may not be without handkerchiefs. If any man think dainty meat to be unlawful, at length he shall not with quietness before the Lord eat either brown bread or common meats, when he remembers that he may yet sustain his body with baser food. If he doubt of pleasant wine, afterward he will not drink flat wine with good peace of conscience, and last of all he will not be so bold to touch sweeter and cleaner water than other. Finally at length he will come to this point, to think it unlawful (as the common saying is) to tread upon a straw lying across. For here is begun no light strife, but this is in question, whether God will have us use these or those things, whose will ought to guide all our counsels and doings. Hereby some must needs be carried with desperation into a confused devouring pit: some must, despising God, and casting away his fear, make themselves away through destruction when they have no ready way. For whoever are entangled with such doubting, which way soever they turn themselves, they see everywhere present offense of conscience.

I know (says Paul) that nothing is common (meaning by common, unholy) but whoever thinks anything common, to him it is common. In which words he makes all outward things subject to our liberty, provided always that our minds have the assurance of the liberty before God. But if any superstitious opinion casts into us any doubt, those things which of their own nature were clean, are defiled to us. Therefore he adds: Blessed is he that judges not himself in that which he allows. But he that judges, if he eats, is condemned, because he eats not of faith. And that which is not of faith, is sin. Among such narrow straits, whoever nevertheless with carelessly venturing on all things show themselves bolder, do they not as much turn themselves away from God? But they which are thoroughly pierced with some fear of God, when they themselves also are compelled to do many things against their conscience, are discouraged and do fall down with fear. All that are such, receive none of the gifts of God with thanksgiving, by which above yet Paul testifies that they all are sanctified to our use. I mean the thanksgiving that proceeds from a heart that acknowledges the liberality and goodness of God in his gifts. For, many of them indeed do understand that those are the benefits of God which they use, and they praise God in his works: but since they are not persuaded that they are given to themselves, how should they thank God as the giver of them? Thus in a sum we see, to what this liberty tends, namely that we should use the gifts of God to such use as he has given them to us, without any scruple of conscience, without any trouble of mind: by which confidence our souls may both have peace with him and acknowledge his liberality toward us. For here are comprehended all ceremonies that are at liberty to be observed, that our consciences should not be bound with any necessity to keep them, but should remember that the use of them is by God's benefit subject to themselves for edification.

But it is diligently to be noted, that Christian liberty is in all the parts of it a spiritual thing, whose whole strength consists in appeasing fearful consciences before God, if either they be unquieted or careful for the forgiveness of sins, or if they be pensive whether our imperfect works, defiled with the faults of our flesh, do please God, or if they be troubled about the use of indifferent things. Therefore they do wrongfully expound it, who either make it a cloak for their own desires, that they may abuse the gifts of God to their own lust, or who think that there is no liberty but that which is used before men, and therefore in using it have no regard for the weak brethren. In the first kind, men do at this day much offend. There is almost no man who may by his ability of wealth be sumptuous, who delights not in excessive gorgeousness in the furnishing of banquets, in the apparel of the body, in building of houses, who does not have a will to excel others in all kinds of stateliness, who does not marvelously flatter himself in his fineness. And all these things are defended under the pretense of Christian liberty. They say that they are things indifferent: I grant, so that a man indifferently use them. But when they are too greedily coveted, when they are proudly boasted, when they are wastefully spent, it is certain that those things which otherwise were of themselves lawful are by these faults defiled. This saying of Paul does very well put difference between things indifferent: All things are clean to the clean; but to the defiled and unbelieving, nothing is clean, because their mind and conscience is defiled. For why are accursed the rich men, they which have their comfort, which are satisfied with meat, which do now laugh, which sleep in beds of ivory, which join land to land, whose banquets have lute, harp, tabor, and wine? Verily both ivory, and gold, and riches are the good creatures of God, permitted — yes, and appointed by the providence of God for men to use. Neither is it anywhere forbidden either to laugh, or to be satisfied with meat, or to join new possessions to their own old possessions or those of their ancestors, or to be delighted with musical melody, or to drink wine. This is true indeed. But when they have plenty of things — to wallow in delights, to glut themselves, to make their wit and mind drunk with present pleasures and always to gape for new — these doings are most far from the lawful use of the gifts of God. Therefore let them take away immeasurable desire, let them take away immeasurable waste, let them take away vanity and arrogance, that they may with a pure conscience purely use the gifts of God. When the mind shall be framed to this sobriety, they shall have a rule of the lawful use. On the other side, let this moderation be wanting — even base and common delicacies are too much. For this is truly said, that oftentimes in frieze and coarse cloth dwells a purple heart, and sometimes under silk and purple lies simple humility. Let every man in his degree so live, either poorly, or moderately, or plentifully, that they all remember that they are fed by God to live, not to be riotous; and let them think that this is the law of Christian liberty, if they have learned with Paul to be contented with those things which they presently have; if they can both be humble and excel; if they are taught in all places and in all things to be both full and hungry, to have plenty and to suffer want.

In this also many men do err, because as though their liberty should not be sound and safe unless it had men as witnesses of it, they do indiscreetly and unwisely use it. By which unseasonable using they many times offend the weak brethren. You may see at this day some who think that their liberty cannot stand unless they take possession of it by eating flesh on Friday. I blame not that they eat; but this false opinion must be driven out of their minds. For they ought to think that by their liberty they obtain no new thing in the sight of men, but before God, and that it stands as well in abstaining as in using. If they understand that it makes no matter before God whether they eat flesh or eggs, whether they wear red or black garments, that is enough. The conscience is now free, to which the benefit of such liberty was due. Therefore although they do afterward abstain all their life long from flesh, and wear always but one color, yet they are no less free. Yes, therefore, because they are free, they do with a free conscience abstain. But they do most hurtfully offend because they nothing regard the weakness of their brethren, which we ought so to bear with that we rashly commit nothing to their offense. But sometimes also it is fitting that our liberty be set forth before men. And this I grant. But there is a measure most heedfully to be kept, that we do not cast away the care of the weak, of whom the Lord has so earnestly given us charge.

I will in this place therefore speak somewhat of offenses, in what difference they are to be taken, which are to be avoided, and which to be neglected: whereupon we may afterward determine what place there is for our liberty among men. I like well that common division, which teaches that there is of offenses one sort given, another taken: for as much as it both has a plain testimony of the Scripture, and does not unfitly express that which it means. If you do any thing by unseasonable lightness, or wantonness, or rashness, not in order, nor in fit place, whereby the ignorant and weak are be offended, that same may be called an offense given by you: because it came to pass by your fault that such offense was stirred up. And it is always called an offense given in any thing, the fault of which came from the doer of that thing itself. It is called an offense taken, when a thing which is otherwise not evilly done nor out of time is by evil will or by some wrongful maliciousness of mind drawn to occasion of offense. For in this case was not offense given, but these wrongful construers do without cause take one. With the first kind of offense none are offended but the weak: but with this second kind sour natures and Pharisaical scornful heads are offended. Therefore we shall call the one, the offense of the weak: the other of the Pharisees: and we shall so temper the use of our liberty, that it ought to give place to the ignorance of the weak brethren, but in no way to the rigorousness of the Pharisees. For, what is to be yielded to weakness, Paul shows in very many places. Bear (says he) the weak in faith. Again, Let us not hereafter judge one another: but this rather, let there not be laid before our brother any offense or occasion of falling: and many other sayings to the same intent, which are more fit to be read in the place itself, than to be here rehearsed. The sum is, that we which are strong should bear with the weaknesses of our brethren, and not please ourselves, but every one of us please his neighbor to good for edifying. In another place, But see that your liberty be not in any way an offense to them that are weak. Again, Eat all things that are sold in the shambles, asking no question for conscience: of your conscience (I say) not another man's. Finally be such, that you give no offense, neither to the Jews, nor to the Greeks, nor to the Church of God. Also in another place, you are called, brethren, into liberty: only give not your liberty to be an occasion to the flesh, but by charity serve one another. Thus it is. Our liberty is not given toward our weak neighbors, whose servants charity makes us in all things: but rather, that having peace with God in our minds, we may also live peaceably among men. As for the offense of the Pharisees, how much it is to be regarded, we learn by the words of the Lord, whereby he bids them to be let alone, because they are blind, and guides of the blind. The disciples had warned him, that the Pharisees were offended with his sayings: he answered that they were to be neglected, and the offending of them not to be cared for.

But yet still the matter hangs doubtful, unless we know who are to be taken for weak, and who for Pharisees: which difference being taken away, I see not among offenses what use at all of liberty remains, which might never be used without great danger. But it seems to me that Paul has most plainly declared both by doctrine and by examples, how far our liberty is either to be tempered, or to be defended though with offenses. When he took Timothy into his company, he circumcised him: but he could not be brought to circumcise Titus. Here were diverse doings, and no change of purpose nor of mind: namely in circumcising Timothy, when he was free from all men, he made himself servant to all men — and he was made to the Jews, as a Jew, that he might win the Jews: to them that were under the law, as if he himself were under the law, that he might win them which were under the law: all things to all men, that he might save many, as he writes in another place. Thus we have a right moderation of liberty, if it may be indifferently restrained with some profit. What he had respect to when he stoutly refused to circumcise Titus, he himself testifies, writing thus, But neither was Titus — who was with me, although he was a Greek, compelled to be circumcised, because of the false brethren which were come in by the way, which had privily crept in to spy our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus, [reconstructed: that they] might bring us into bondage, to whom we gave not place by [reconstructed: submission] so much as for a time, that the truth of the gospel might [reconstructed: remain] with [reconstructed: you]. There is also a time when we must of necessity defend our liberty, if the same be in weak consciences endangered by the unjust [reconstructed: exactings] of false Apostles. We must in every thing study to preserve charity, and have regard to the edifying of our neighbor. All things (says he) are lawful for me, but not all things are expedient: all things are lawful for me but not all things do edify. Let no man seek that which is his own, but that which is another's. There is nothing now plainer by this rule, than that we must use our liberty, if it may turn to the edifying of our neighbor: but if it be not so expedient for our neighbor, then we must forbear it. There be some which counterfeit the wisdom of Paul in forbearing of liberty, while they do nothing less than apply the same to the duties of charity. For, so that they may provide for their own quietness, they wish all mention of liberty to be buried, whereas it is no less needful for our neighbors, sometime to use liberty for their benefit and edification, than in fit place to restrain it for their convenience. But it is the part of a godly man to think, that free power in outward things is therefore granted him, that he may be the freer to all duties of charity.

But whatever I have spoken of avoiding of offenses, my meaning is that it be referred to mean and indifferent things. For, those things that are necessary to be done, are not to be left undone for fear of any offense. For as our liberty is to be submitted to charity, so charity itself likewise ought to be under the purity of faith. Truly here also ought to be had regard of charity, but so far as to the [reconstructed: others], that is, that for our neighbors' sake we offend not God. Their intemperance is not to be allowed, which do nothing but with troublesome turmoil, and which had rather rashly to [reconstructed: rend] all things, than leisurely to rip them. Neither yet are they to be listened to, which when they be leaders of men into a thousand sorts of ungodliness, yet do feign that they must behave themselves so that they be no offense to their neighbors. As though they do not in the meantime edify the consciences of their neighbors to evil, especially whereas they stick fast in the same mire without any hope of getting out. And the pleasant men indeed, whether their neighbor be to be instructed with doctrine or example of life, say that he must be fed with milk, whom they fill with most evil and poisonous opinions. Paul reports that he fed the Corinthians with drinking of milk: but if the popish Mass had then been among them, would he have sacrificed to give them the drink of milk? But milk is not poison. Therefore they lie in saying that they feed them whom under a show of flattering allurements they cruelly kill. But, granting that such dissembling is for a time to be allowed, how long yet will they feed their children with milk? For if they never grow bigger, that they may at the least be able to bear some light food, it is certain that they were never brought up with milk. There are two reasons that move me why I do not now more sharply contend with them: first, because their follies are scarcely worthy to be confuted, since they deservedly seem filthy in the sight of all men that have their sound wit: secondly, because I have sufficiently done it in particular books, I will not now do a thing already done. Only let the readers remember this, that with whatever offenses Satan and the world go about to turn us away from the ordinances of God or to stay us from following that which he appoints, yet we must nevertheless go earnestly forward. And then, that whatever dangers hang upon it, yet it is not at our liberty to swerve one hairbreadth from the commandment of the same God, neither is it lawful by any pretense to attempt anything but that which he gives us leave.

Now therefore, since faithful consciences having received such prerogative of liberty as we have above set forth, have by the benefit of Christ obtained this that they be not entangled with any snares of observations in those things in which the Lord willed that they should be at liberty: we conclude that they are exempt from all power of men. For it is unfit, that either Christ should lose the thanks of his so great liberality, or consciences their profit. Neither ought we to think it a slight matter, which we see to have cost Christ so dear: namely which he valued not with gold or silver, but with his own blood: so that Paul sticks not to say, that his death is made void, if we yield ourselves into subjection to men. For he labors about nothing else in certain chapters of the Epistle to the Galatians, but to show that Christ is darkened or rather destroyed to us, unless our consciences stand fast in their liberty, which indeed they have lost if they may at the will of men be snared with the bonds of laws and ordinances. But, as it is a thing most worthy to be known, so it needs a longer and plainer declaration. For as soon as any word is spoken of the abrogating of the ordinances of men, by and by great troubles are raised up partly by seditious men, partly by slanderers, as though the whole obedience of men were at once taken away and overthrown.

Therefore, that none of us may stumble at this stone, first let us consider, that there are two sorts of government in man: the one spiritual, whereby the conscience is framed to godliness and to the worship of God: the other civil, whereby man is trained to the duties of humanity and civility which are to be kept among men. They are commonly by not unfit names called the Spiritual and Temporal jurisdiction, whereby is signified, that the first of these two forms of government pertains to the life of the soul, and the latter is occupied in the things of this present life: not only in feeding and clothing, but in setting forth of laws whereby a man may spend his life among men holily, honestly, and soberly. For, that first kind has place in the inward mind, this latter kind orders only the outward behaviors. The one we may call the Spiritual kingdom: the other, the Civil kingdom. But these two, as we have divided them must be either of them always severally considered by themselves: and when the one is in considering, we must withdraw and turn away our minds from thinking upon the other. For there are in man as it were two worlds, which both diverse Kings and diverse laws may govern. By this putting of difference shall come to pass, that that which the Gospel teaches of the spiritual liberty, we shall not wrongfully draw to the civil order, as though Christians were according to the outward government less subject to the laws of men, because their consciences are at liberty before God: as though they were therefore exempt from all bondage of the flesh, because they are free according to the Spirit. Again, because even in those ordinances which seem to pertain to the spiritual kingdom, there may be some error: we must also put difference between these, which are to be taken for lawful as agreeable to the word of God, and on the other side which ought not to have place among the godly. Of the civil government there shall be elsewhere place to speak. Also of the Ecclesiastical laws I omit to speak at this time, because a more full treating of it shall be fit for the Fourth Book, where we shall speak of the power of the Church. But of this discourse, let this be the conclusion. The question being (as I have said) of itself not very dark or entangled does for this cause encumber many, because they do not subtly enough put difference between the outward court as they call it, and the court of conscience. Moreover this increases the difficulty, that Paul teaches that the Magistrate ought to be obeyed, not only for fear of punishment, but for conscience (Romans 13:1, 5). Whereupon follows that consciences are also bound by the civil laws. If it were so, all should come to nothing which we both have spoken and shall speak of the spiritual government. For the loosing of this knot, first it is good to know what is conscience. And the definition thereof is to be fetched from the proper derivation of the word. For, as when men do with mind and understanding conceive the knowledge of things, they are thereby said (Scire) to know, whereupon also is derived the name of science, knowledge: so when they have a feeling of the judgment of God, as a witness joined with them which does not suffer them to hide their sins but that they be drawn accused to the judgment seat of God, that same feeling is called Conscience (Romans 2:15). For it is a certain mean between God and man, because it suffers not man to suppress in himself that which he knows, but pursues him so far till it bring him to guiltiness. This is it which Paul means, where he says that conscience does together witness with men, when their thoughts do accuse or acquit them in the judgment of God. A simple knowledge might remain as enclosed within man. Therefore this feeling which presents man to the judgment of God, is as it were a keeper joined to man, to mark and spy all his secrets, that nothing may remain buried in darkness. Whereupon also comes that old Proverb, Conscience is a thousand witnesses. And for the same reason Peter has set the examination of a good conscience for quietness of mind, when being persuaded of the grace of Christ, we do without fear present ourselves before God (1 Peter 3:21). And the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews, sets to have no more conscience of sin, instead of to be delivered or acquitted that sin may no more accuse us (Hebrews 10:2).

Therefore as works have respect to men, so conscience is referred to God, so that a good conscience is nothing else but the inward purity of the heart. In which sense Paul writes that charity is the fulfilling of the law out of a pure conscience and faith not feigned (2 Timothy 1:5). Afterward also in the same chapter he shows how much it differs from understanding, saying that some had suffered shipwreck from the faith, because they had forsaken good conscience. For in these words he signifies that it is a lively affection to worship God, and a sincere endeavor to live holily and godly. Sometimes indeed it extends also to men, as in Luke where the same Paul protests that he endeavored himself to walk with a good conscience toward God and men (Acts 24:16). But this was therefore said, because the fruits of good conscience do flow and come even to men. But in speaking properly, it has respect to God only, as I have already said. Hereby it comes to pass that the law is said to bind the conscience, which simply binds a man without respect of men, or without having any consideration of them. As for example. God commands not only to keep the mind chaste and pure from all lust, but also forbids all manner of filthiness of words and outward wantonness whatever it be. To the keeping of this law my conscience is subject although there lived not one man in the world. So he that behaves himself intemperately, not only sins in this that he gives an evil example to the brethren, but also has his conscience bound with guiltiness before God. In things that are of themselves mean, there is another consideration. For we ought to abstain from them if they breed any offense, but the conscience still being free. So Paul speaks of flesh consecrated to Idols (1 Corinthians 10:28). If any (says he) move any doubt, touch it not for conscience's sake: I say for conscience, not yours but the others. A faithful man should sin, which being first warned should nevertheless eat such flesh. But however in respect of his brother, it is necessary for him to abstain as it is prescribed of God, yet he ceases not to keep still the liberty of conscience. Thus we see how this law binding the outward work, leaves the conscience unbound.

We must now treat of Christian liberty — something anyone who intends to summarize the essential teaching of the Gospel must not omit. For it is a matter of primary importance, and without knowledge of it consciences dare undertake almost nothing without doubt, stumble and draw back in many situations, and constantly stagger and tremble. Most importantly, it is closely connected to justification and contributes greatly to understanding its power. Indeed, those who genuinely fear God will receive immense benefit from this teaching — which ungodly and mocking people taunt with scorn, since in the spiritual darkness that has overtaken them, every irreverent jest seems permissible. It is fitting therefore to treat it now. It was useful to defer a fuller treatment to this point — for we have already touched on it briefly in various places — because as soon as Christian liberty is mentioned, shameful lusts boil up or wild arguments arise, unless these reckless minds are met in time. For they otherwise corrupt the best things most wickedly. Some people use the pretense of this liberty to shake off all obedience to God and break out into unchecked licentiousness. Others reject it entirely, thinking it removes all moderation, order, and distinction between things. What are we to do, caught in such a narrow pass? Shall we say farewell to Christian liberty and cut off all opportunity for such dangers? But as we have said, unless this liberty is firmly held, neither Christ, nor the truth of the Gospel, nor the soul's inward peace is rightly understood. Rather we must strive to ensure that so necessary a part of doctrine is not suppressed — while at the same time meeting the foolish objections that commonly arise from it.

Christian liberty, as I understand it, consists of three parts. The first is this: when the faithful are seeking assurance of their justification before God, their consciences may rise above the law and forget the whole righteousness of the law entirely. For since the law — as we have already declared elsewhere — leaves no one righteous, we are either excluded from all hope of justification, or we must be released from the law so that works carry no weight whatsoever. For whoever thinks he must bring any amount of good works, however small, to obtain righteousness, has no end or limit to them — he has made himself a debtor to the whole law. Therefore, when treating of justification, we must set aside all mention of the law and all thinking about works, embrace God's mercy alone, and turn our eyes away from ourselves to behold Christ alone. For the question is not how we are righteous in ourselves, but how — though we are unrighteous and unworthy — we are accepted as worthy. If consciences will have any certainty of this, they must give no place to the law. No one should conclude from this that the law is therefore useless to the faithful. It does not cease to teach, exhort, and prod them toward goodness — it simply has no place before God's judgment seat in the matter of their consciences. For these two things, though very different, must be carefully distinguished. The whole life of Christians ought to be a meditation on godliness, since they are called to sanctification. This is where the role of the law stands: by reminding them of their duty, it stirs them up to strive for holiness and innocence. But when consciences are anxious about how they may find God merciful, what answer they will give, and on what ground they may stand if called to His judgment — there the law has no place. Christ alone must be set forward as righteousness, which surpasses all the perfection of the law.

Almost the entire argument of the letter to the Galatians turns on this point. That those expositors are mistaken who teach that Paul is there contending only for freedom from ceremonies can be proved from the substance of his arguments. Among these are: 'Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us.' Again: 'Stand firm in the freedom by which Christ has set you free, and do not submit again to a yoke of slavery.' 'Look, I Paul say to you that if you become circumcised, Christ will be of no benefit to you.' 'And every man who becomes circumcised is obligated to keep the whole law.' 'You have been severed from Christ, you who are seeking to be justified by law; you have fallen from grace.' These words plainly contain something higher than freedom from ceremonies. I grant that Paul is dealing with ceremonies, since he is contending with false apostles who sought to bring back into the Christian church the old shadows of the law that were abolished by Christ's coming. But in addressing that question, he had to press deeper points on which the whole controversy rested. First, because those Jewish shadows were obscuring the brightness of the Gospel, he shows that in Christ we have a full and certain gift of all the things those ceremonies of Moses foreshadowed. Second, because these deceivers had filled the people with the wicked idea that this obedience merited the favor of God, he dwells at length on the point that the faithful must not think they can obtain righteousness before God by any works of the law — much less by those elementary rules. He also teaches that they are freed by Christ's cross from the condemnation of the law, which otherwise hangs over all people — so that they may rest with full assurance in Christ alone. This point belongs directly to our present subject. Finally, he defends the liberty of the consciences of the faithful so that they should not be bound by any obligation in things that are not necessary.

The second part of Christian liberty, which depends on the first, is this: consciences obey the law not as compelled by the law's necessity, but being free from the yoke of the law itself, they willingly obey the will of God. For because they live in constant fear as long as they remain under the law's dominion, they will never serve God with cheerful readiness unless this liberty is first granted to them. An example will make this clearer and more briefly to the point. The commandment of the law is that we love our God with all our heart, soul, and strength. For this to be accomplished, our soul must first be emptied of every other thought and desire, our heart cleansed of all cravings, and all our energies gathered and directed to this one purpose. Yet even those who have made the greatest progress in the Lord's way are still very far from this mark. Though they love God with their mind and with sincere affection of heart, they still have a large part of their heart and soul occupied by the desires of the flesh, which pull them back and prevent them from pressing forward to God with full speed. They do strive forward with great effort — but the flesh partly weakens their strength and partly pulls them toward itself. What are they to do when they feel they are falling far short of fulfilling the law? They have the will, the desire, the effort — but none of it with the perfection that is required. If they look to the law, they see that every work they attempt or intend is accursed. And no one should deceive himself by reasoning that a work is not entirely evil just because it is imperfect, and that therefore God still accepts the good that is in it. For the law, requiring perfect love, condemns all imperfection unless its rigor is softened. So the works a person hoped might be partly good will collapse entirely — and he will find that even the imperfection itself makes them a transgression of the law (Deuteronomy 6:5).

You see how all our works fall under the curse of the law when measured by its standard. But how then can unhappy souls cheerfully apply themselves to work, when they cannot trust that anything will come of it but a curse? On the other hand, if being released from the law's harsh demands — or rather from its entire severity — they hear that God calls them with fatherly gentleness, they will answer His call cheerfully and with great joy, and follow His leading. In short, those who are bound under the yoke of the law are like hired workers to whom their masters have assigned specific tasks for each day. These workers think they have done nothing and dare not appear before their masters unless they have completed the full assignment. But children, who are treated more generously and freely by their fathers, do not hesitate to bring them their begun and half-finished works — even those with faults — trusting that their fathers will accept their obedience and willing spirit even when they have not done as well as they had hoped. In the same way, we must have firm confidence that our obedience will be accepted by our most kind Father, however small, rough, and imperfect it may be. He assures us of this through the prophet: 'I will spare them as a man spares his own son who serves him' (Malachi 3:17). Here the word 'spare' means to bear with and gently overlook faults — especially since he also mentions service. This confidence is not a small thing. Without it we will undertake everything in vain. For God considers Himself worshiped by no work of ours unless it is truly offered to Him for the purpose of worshiping Him. But how can that happen amid these terrors, when there is doubt whether God is offended or worshiped by what we do?

This is why the author of the letter to the Hebrews connects all the good works recorded of the holy fathers to faith and evaluates them only in terms of faith. Regarding this liberty, there is an important passage in Romans where Paul reasons that sin should not have dominion over us because we are not under law but under grace. After exhorting the faithful not to let sin reign in their mortal bodies and not to yield their members as instruments of wickedness to sin, but instead to present themselves to God as those who are alive from the dead — their members as instruments of righteousness to God — he anticipates the objection that they still carry within them a flesh full of desires and that sin still dwells in them. He adds the comfort of freedom from the law, as if to say: though they do not yet feel sin completely destroyed, and righteousness does not yet fully live within them, there is no reason for them to fear and be discouraged as if God were always displeased with them because of the remnants of sin — since they have been freed from the law by grace, so that their works are no longer to be examined by the law's standard. As for those who conclude from our not being under the law that we may therefore sin — let them know that this liberty has nothing to do with them, since its purpose is to draw us nearer to God.

The third part of Christian liberty is this: we are not bound in conscience before God in matters of outward things that are in themselves indifferent — we may freely use them or freely leave them unused. Knowledge of this liberty is also very necessary for us, for without it there will be no rest for our consciences and no end to superstitions. Many today think we are foolish to debate about freely eating meat, freely choosing holy days, clothing, and other such minor things as they consider them. But there is more weight in these questions than is commonly thought. For once consciences cast themselves into the snare of doubt, they enter a long and burdensome path from which they cannot easily find their way out. If a person begins to doubt whether he may use linen for sheets, shirts, handkerchiefs, and napkins, he will also doubt about hemp — and in the end he will fall into doubt about even greater matters, wondering whether he can eat supper without napkins or do without a handkerchief. If someone thinks fine food is unlawful, in time he will not be able to eat plain bread or simple food before the Lord with a quiet mind, since he knows his body could be sustained on something even more basic. If he doubts about pleasant wine, he will afterward not drink flat wine with a clear conscience — and eventually he will not dare even to drink clean water that tastes a little sweeter than others. Finally he will reach the point of thinking it unlawful — as the proverb goes — to tread on a piece of straw lying across the path. For this is no trivial dispute. The question is whether God wills us to use these things or those things — whose will ought to direct all our thinking and doing. Inevitably, some are driven by despair into a pit of confusion. Others, casting off the fear of God and despising Him, go to ruin when they find no easy resolution. For those trapped in such doubts, every direction they turn they find a fresh offense against their conscience.

'I know,' says Paul, 'that nothing is unclean in itself' — by 'unclean' meaning unholy — 'but to the one who thinks it is unclean, to him it is unclean.' In these words he subjects all outward things to our liberty, provided always that our minds are assured of that liberty before God. But if some superstitious idea casts doubt into us, things that were clean in their own nature become defiled for us. Therefore he adds: 'Happy is the one who does not condemn himself in what he approves. But the one who doubts is condemned if he eats, because he does not eat from faith; and whatever is not from faith is sin.' Among such narrow straits, those who nevertheless recklessly throw themselves into everything without reservation — are they not turning away from God just as much? But those who are genuinely moved by the fear of God — when they also are forced to do many things against their conscience — are discouraged and fall down in fear. All such people receive none of God's gifts with thanksgiving — by which, as Paul testifies, they are all sanctified for our use. I mean the thanksgiving that comes from a heart that recognizes the generosity and goodness of God in His gifts. For many do recognize that the things they use are God's benefits and do praise God in His works — but since they are not persuaded that these things are given to them personally, how can they thank God as the giver? So we see in summary what this liberty aims at: that we should use God's gifts for the purposes He gave them to us — without scruple of conscience, without mental distress — so that through this confidence our souls may both be at peace with Him and acknowledge His generosity toward us. Included here are all ceremonies that are at liberty to be observed: our consciences are not to be bound by any necessity to keep them, but should remember that the use of them is, by God's kindness, placed under our discretion for the purpose of building up.

It must be carefully noted that Christian liberty in all its parts is a spiritual matter, whose entire power consists in giving peace to troubled consciences before God — whether they are unsettled and anxious about the forgiveness of sins, or whether they are worried that our imperfect works, stained by the weakness of our flesh, might not please God, or whether they are troubled about the use of indifferent things. Therefore those who misuse it go wrong: either they treat it as a cover for their own desires, abusing God's gifts to feed their lusts, or they think there is no liberty except what is displayed before other people — and therefore, in exercising it, they pay no attention to the weak. The first kind of error is very common today. There is hardly a wealthy person who does not delight in extravagant display — in lavish banquets, costly clothing, ornate houses — who does not strive to outshine others in every form of grandeur, and who does not immensely flatter himself on his own refinement. All of this is defended under the pretense of Christian liberty. They say these things are indifferent — and I grant this, provided a person uses them as indifferent things. But when they are greedily coveted, proudly flaunted, and wastefully spent, it is clear that things otherwise lawful in themselves have been defiled by these faults. Paul's words draw this distinction well between things indifferent: 'To the pure, all things are pure; but to the defiled and unbelieving, nothing is pure, for both their mind and their conscience are defiled.' For why are the rich men condemned — those who have received their comfort, who are full of food, who laugh now, who sleep on beds of ivory, who add field to field, whose banquets resound with lute, harp, tambourine, and wine? Ivory, gold, and riches are indeed God's good creations, permitted — yes, appointed by His providence for human use. There is no prohibition against laughing, being well fed, adding to one's inherited property, delighting in music, or drinking wine. This is all true. But when, in the midst of abundance, people wallow in pleasures, gorge themselves, intoxicate their minds with present enjoyments and constantly crave more — these ways are completely at odds with the lawful use of God's gifts. Let them therefore put away excessive desire, excessive waste, vanity, and arrogance, so that they may use God's gifts with a clear conscience and in a clean way. When the mind is shaped to this sobriety, they will have a guide to lawful use. On the other hand, where this moderation is absent, even simple and ordinary pleasures are excessive. For this is truly said: that often a proud heart lives in rough, plain cloth, and sometimes beneath silk and purple there lies simple humility. Let every person at his own level — whether living poorly, moderately, or with plenty — remember that God sustains us to live, not to live riotously. And let him consider this to be the rule of Christian liberty: to have learned with Paul to be content in whatever state he finds himself; to know how to be humble and how to have abundance; to have been taught in every place and in every circumstance both to be full and to be hungry, to have plenty and to suffer need.

Many also err in this way: as though their liberty would not be genuine unless others witnessed it, they exercise it carelessly and without wisdom. By this untimely use they frequently offend the weak. You can see today some who think their liberty cannot stand unless they assert it by eating meat on Friday. I do not condemn their eating — but the false opinion behind it must be driven from their minds. They should understand that their liberty gains them nothing new in the sight of people but only before God, and that it stands equally well in abstaining as in using. If they understand that it makes no difference before God whether they eat meat or eggs, whether they wear red or black — that is enough. The conscience is now free, which is what this liberty was meant for. Therefore, even if they afterward abstain from meat their whole life long and always wear only one color, they are no less free. Indeed, precisely because they are free, they abstain with a free conscience. But they cause serious harm by showing no regard for the weakness of their brothers — the weak whom we ought to bear with so carefully that we do nothing rashly that might cause them offense. Sometimes, however, it is right that our liberty be made known before others. I grant this. But there is a measure to be kept most carefully, so that we do not abandon our concern for the weak, whom the Lord has charged us so earnestly to care for.

I will therefore say something here about offenses — how they are to be distinguished, which are to be avoided, and which may be disregarded — from which we can then determine what place liberty has among people. I approve the common distinction that teaches there are two kinds of offense: offense given and offense taken. It has clear scriptural support and expresses the meaning well. If you do something out of untimely thoughtlessness, recklessness, or carelessness — not in the proper manner or place — and by this the ignorant and weak are offended, that can be called an offense given by you. The offense arose through your fault. An offense is always called 'given' when the fault for it lies with the person who did the thing. An offense is called 'taken' when something that has not been done wrongly or at the wrong time is twisted by ill will or malicious interpretation into grounds for offense. In this case, no offense was given — these ill-natured critics have taken one without just cause. The first kind of offense only harms the weak; the second kind offends those of bitter and Pharisaical temperament. We will therefore call one the offense of the weak, and the other the offense of the Pharisees. We should adjust the use of our liberty accordingly: it ought to yield to the ignorance of weak brothers, but in no way to the harshness of Pharisees. What is to be conceded to weakness, Paul shows in many places: 'Welcome those who are weak in faith.' 'Let us not judge one another anymore. Instead resolve never to put a stumbling block or an obstacle in your brother's way' — and many other statements to the same effect, which are better read in their own context than quoted here. The sum of it is this: we who are strong ought to bear with the weaknesses of those who are not strong, and not please ourselves — but let each of us please his neighbor for his good and for building him up. In another place: 'But take care that this freedom of yours does not somehow become a stumbling block to the weak.' Again: 'Eat everything that is sold in the meat market without raising any question of conscience' — your conscience, I say, not another person's. 'Give no offense either to Jews or to Greeks or to the church of God.' And again: 'For you were called to freedom, brothers. Only do not use your freedom as an opportunity for the flesh, but through love serve one another.' So it is: our liberty is not meant to harm our weak neighbors, to whom love makes us servants in all things. Rather, it is so that, having peace with God in our hearts, we may also live at peace with others. As for the offense of the Pharisees, how much it deserves to be regarded we learn from the Lord's own words, when He says to leave them alone, for they are blind guides of the blind. When the disciples warned Him that the Pharisees were offended by His words, He answered that they were to be disregarded and their offense not worried about.

But the matter remains uncertain unless we know who are to be considered weak and who are to be considered Pharisees. Without that distinction, I do not see what room for the exercise of liberty remains — it could never be used without great danger. But Paul has, it seems to me, set out most clearly both by teaching and by example how far our liberty is to be restrained or defended even at the cost of causing offense. When he received Timothy into his company, he circumcised him. But he could not be brought to circumcise Titus. Here were very different actions but no change of principle or purpose. In circumcising Timothy, while he was free from all men, he made himself a servant to all — becoming like a Jew to the Jews so that he might win Jews; like one under the law to those under the law, that he might win those under the law; all things to all people, that he might save many, as he writes elsewhere. There we see the proper use of liberty: it can freely be restrained when there is some benefit in doing so. What he had in view when he firmly refused to circumcise Titus, he explains in his own words: 'But not even Titus, who was with me, though he was a Greek, was compelled to be circumcised. But it was because of the false brothers secretly brought in, who had sneaked in to spy out our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus, in order to bring us into bondage — to whom we did not yield in submission even for an hour, so that the truth of the Gospel would remain with you.' There is also a time when we must necessarily defend our liberty — especially when weak consciences are placed in danger by the unjust demands of false apostles. In everything we must aim to preserve love and have regard for the building up of our neighbor. 'All things are lawful for me,' Paul says, 'but not all things are helpful. All things are lawful for me, but not all things edify. Let no one seek his own good, but the good of his neighbor.' Nothing could be plainer from this rule: we should use our liberty when it can build up our neighbor, but when that is not the case, we should hold back. There are some who imitate the wisdom of Paul in restraining liberty, while actually applying it not at all to the duties of love. They simply want quiet for themselves and would have all mention of liberty buried. Yet it is just as necessary sometimes to exercise liberty for the benefit and building up of our neighbors as it is at other times to hold it back for their sake. But it is the mark of a godly person to understand that freedom in outward things is granted precisely so that he may be all the freer for the duties of love.

But everything I have said about avoiding offense is to be understood as applying to indifferent things. Necessary things must not be left undone for fear of any offense. For just as our liberty must be submitted to love, so love itself must be submitted to the purity of faith. Even here we ought to have regard for love — but only up to the point of serving others, not to the point of offending God for our neighbors' sake. I will not excuse the recklessness of those who do nothing but cause disruptive turmoil and would rather tear everything apart rashly than carefully undo it one piece at a time. But neither should we listen to those who, while leading people into a thousand forms of ungodliness, pretend they must conduct themselves so as not to cause offense to their neighbors — as though they were not at the very same time building those neighbors' consciences up toward evil, especially while they themselves remain stuck in the same mire with no hope of getting out. These pleasant-sounding people say, whether speaking of instructing the neighbor through doctrine or through example of life, that he must be fed with milk — and then they fill him with the most corrupt and poisonous ideas. Paul says he fed the Corinthians with milk to drink — but if the papal Mass had existed among them, would he have celebrated it to give them milk to drink? Milk is not poison. Therefore they are lying when they say they are feeding those whom, under a pretense of flattering care, they are cruelly killing. But even granting that such accommodation could be allowed for a time — how long will they keep feeding their children with milk? If those children never grow to the point where they can bear even some light food, it is clear they were never really being fed with milk at all. Two reasons prevent me from pressing against them more sharply here: first, their foolishness hardly deserves refutation, since it appears obviously corrupt to all who have sound judgment; second, I have addressed it sufficiently in other writings and will not repeat what has already been done. Let readers simply remember this: no matter what offenses Satan and the world use to turn us from God's ordinances or to hold us back from what He commands, we must press earnestly forward. And then remember this: no matter what dangers hang over it, we do not have the liberty to swerve a hair's breadth from God's commandment, and it is not lawful by any pretense to attempt anything He has not given us permission to do.

Now therefore, since faithful consciences — having received the prerogative of liberty as we have described above, through the benefit of Christ — have obtained this: that they are not entangled in any snares of observances in matters where the Lord willed them to be free. We conclude that they are exempt from all human authority in these things. For it is fitting neither that Christ should lose the credit of His great generosity, nor that consciences should lose their benefit. We should not think lightly of what we see cost Christ so dearly — something He purchased not with gold or silver but with His own blood — so that Paul does not hesitate to say that His death is made void if we submit ourselves to bondage under human authority. Paul labors at this throughout certain chapters of Galatians, to show that Christ is obscured — or rather, destroyed — for us unless our consciences stand firm in their liberty. And they lose that liberty if they can be ensnared at human will by the chains of laws and ordinances. But this is something so important to know that it calls for a longer and clearer explanation. For as soon as any mention is made of abolishing human ordinances, great troubles are immediately stirred up — partly by rebellious men, partly by slanderers — as if all human obedience were being swept away at once.

So that none of us stumbles on this point, let us first consider that there are two kinds of government in human life: one spiritual, by which the conscience is shaped toward godliness and the worship of God; the other civil, by which a person is trained in the duties of humanity and civility that are to be maintained among people. These are commonly called, not unfitly, the Spiritual and the Temporal jurisdictions — by which it is indicated that the first of these two forms of government pertains to the life of the soul, while the latter deals with the concerns of this present life: not only with food and clothing, but with establishing laws by which a person may live among others in a holy, honest, and sober manner. For the first kind operates in the inward mind; the second only regulates outward behavior. We may call one the spiritual kingdom and the other the civil kingdom. These two, as I have distinguished them, must always be considered separately on their own terms — and when considering one, we must set aside all thought of the other. For there are in a person, as it were, two worlds, which may each be governed by different kings and different laws. By keeping this distinction in view, we will avoid the error of wrongly applying what the Gospel teaches about spiritual liberty to the civil order — as if Christians were, in terms of outward government, less subject to human laws because their consciences are free before God; or as if they were therefore exempt from all bodily constraints because they are free in Spirit. Again, because even in matters that appear to belong to the spiritual kingdom there can be error, we must also distinguish between those ordinances that are to be received as lawful — being agreeable to God's Word — and those that ought to have no place among the godly. I will speak elsewhere about civil government. I also omit the question of ecclesiastical laws for now, as it will be better treated more fully in Book Four, where I will speak of the power of the church. But let this serve as the conclusion of this discussion: the question, which as I have said is not in itself very obscure or complex, troubles many people because they do not carefully distinguish between what they call the external court and the court of conscience. This difficulty is increased by the fact that Paul teaches that the magistrate is to be obeyed not only for fear of punishment but also for conscience's sake (Romans 13:1, 5). It would seem to follow that consciences are also bound by civil laws. If that were the case, everything we have said and will say about spiritual government would come to nothing. To untangle this knot, it is good first to understand what conscience is. Its definition is best drawn from the word itself. Just as when people with mind and understanding come to know something, they are said to 'know' it — from which comes the word 'science' — so when they have a sense of God's judgment, as if a witness stood beside them that would not allow their sins to remain hidden but drew them forward to be accused before God's judgment seat, that inner sense is called 'conscience' (Romans 2:15). For it stands as a kind of intermediary between God and a person — it will not allow a person to suppress what he knows, but pursues him until it brings him to a reckoning of guilt. This is what Paul means when he says that conscience bears witness together with people, while their thoughts accuse or defend them before God's judgment. A mere piece of knowledge could remain shut up inside a person. But this inner sense, which brings a person before God's judgment, is like a watchman assigned to him — to observe and take note of all his secrets, so that nothing remains buried in darkness. Hence the old proverb: 'Conscience is a thousand witnesses.' For the same reason, Peter speaks of 'the answer of a good conscience toward God' as the ground of quiet assurance of mind — when, being persuaded of the grace of Christ, we stand before God without fear (1 Peter 3:21). And the author of the letter to the Hebrews uses 'having no more consciousness of sin' to mean being delivered and acquitted, so that sin can no longer accuse us (Hebrews 10:2).

Therefore, just as works have regard for other people, conscience is directed toward God — so that a good conscience is nothing other than the inward purity of the heart. In this sense Paul writes that love springs from a pure heart, a good conscience, and sincere faith (1 Timothy 1:5). Afterward in the same passage he shows how conscience differs from understanding, saying that some had made shipwreck of their faith because they had abandoned a good conscience — by which he means a living, sincere desire to worship God and a genuine striving to live in a holy and godly way. Sometimes conscience does extend to our dealings with other people, as when Paul in Luke declares that he always endeavored to keep a blameless conscience before God and before people (Acts 24:16). He said this because the fruits of a good conscience flow out and reach even to others. But strictly speaking, conscience has regard only to God, as I have said. From this it follows that the law is said to bind the conscience — it binds the person simply and absolutely, without respect to other people or consideration of them. For example: God commands not only that the mind be kept chaste and pure from all lust, but He also forbids every form of filthy speech and outward indecency whatever it may be. My conscience is bound to keep this law even if there were no other person alive in the world. So the person who behaves without self-control does not only sin by setting a bad example for others — he has his conscience bound in guilt before God. In things that are indifferent, there is a different consideration. We ought to abstain from them if they cause offense to others, but the conscience remains free. So Paul speaks of meat offered to idols (1 Corinthians 10:28): 'If anyone tells you that this has been offered in sacrifice, do not eat it — for the sake of conscience.' For conscience, I say — not yours but the other person's. A faithful person would sin if, having been warned, he still ate such meat. But even though he must abstain for the sake of his brother, as God prescribes, he still retains his freedom of conscience. We see then how this law, which binds the outward action, leaves the conscience free.