These Sections teach the following propositions : 1st. God alone is Lord of the human conscience, which is responsible only to his authority.

2d. God has authoritatively addressed the human conscience only in his law, the only perfect revelation of which in this world is the inspired Scriptures. Hence God himself has set the human conscience free from all obligation to believe or obey any such doctrines or comCHEISTIAN LIBERTY— LIBERTY OF CONSCIEKOE. 359

mand merits of men as are either contrary to or aside from the teachings of that Word.

3d. Hence to believe such doctrines, or to obey such commandments as a matter of conscience, is to be guilty of the sin of betraying the liberty of conscience and its loyalty to its only Lord ; and to require such an obedience of others is to be guilty of the sin of usurping the prerogative of God and attempting to destroy the most precious liberties of men.

4th. This Christian liberty is not, however, absolute. It has its distinct end and limits. Its end is that every person, without hindrance of his fellow-men, should have opportunity to serve God according to his will. The limits of this liberty are of two kinds: (a.) The authority of God, the Lord of conscience. (6.) The equal liberties and rights of our fellow-men, with whom we dwell in organized societies.

5th. Since God has established both the Church and the State, obedience to the legitimate authorities of either, acting within their rightful sphere, is an essential part of obedience to God.

6th. The Church has the right from God of exercising its discipline upon any who maintain or practice opinions or actions plainly contrary to the light of nature, the doctrines of the Scripture or the peace and welfare of the Christian community.

1st. That, in the highest and only absolute sense, God alone is Lord of the human conscience, has never been denied. The real question raised by Romanists, and those in general who have claimed the authority of binding and loosing the consciences of their fellow-men, relates to the standard which God has given us of bi*

"will, and the means he has chosen to enforce it. The Romanists maintain that the true standard and organ of the will of God in the world is the infallible inspired Church, or body of bishops ordained regularly in a direct line from the apostles and in communion with the See of Rome. They hold that this Church has power to define doctrines and enact laws in God's name, binding the consciences of men; and that it possesses, in the power .of the keys, the right, in execution of these laws, to absolve or condemn in God's name, to bind or loose the subject and open or shut the kingdom of heaven, and to impose ecclesiastical penalties.* By far the larger part of what the Church of Rome actually enforces in the way of faith and practice is derived from ecclesiastical tradition and evidently perverted interpretations of Scripture.

The Erastian State churches of Germany and England have often attempted to enforce outward uniformity in profession and worship, in spite of the conscientious scruples of multitudes of their best citizens, on the plea that the right and responsibility of regulating the ecclesiastical as well as the civil interests of the nation devolve upon the civil magistrate.

In opposition to all this, Protestants insist — 2d. That God has given only one, and that a perfect, rule of faith and practice in spiritual matters in the inspired Scriptures, and that he has hence set free the human conscience from all obligation to believe or obey any such doctrines or commandments of men as are contrary to or aside from the teachings of that Word.

* Catechism of the Council of Trent, i. 10, 18 ; Beilarmine Eccle Mil., ch. xiv. ; Catechism of the Council of Trent, i. 11, 4.

CHRISTIAN LIBERTY — LIBERTY OF CONSCIENCE. 361

We have already proved, under Chapter i., §§ 6, 7, 9, 10, that Scripture is at once a complete and perspicuous rule of faith and practice, and supreme judge of all controversies. It hence follows self-evidently (a) that nothing contrary to Scripture can be true, (b) that nothing in addition to what is revealed or commanded in Scripture can be binding upon the conscience, and (c) that, since the Scriptures are perspicuous, every believer is personally responsible for interpreting Scripture and judging of all human doctrines and commandments by Scripture for himself. This is further proved —

(1.) Because the Scriptures are addressed immediately either to all men promiscuously, or else to the whole body of believers as such. Deut. vi. 4-9 ; Luke i. 3 ; Rom. i. 7 ; 1 Cor. i. 2 ; Gal. i. 2, etc.

(2.) All Christians promiscuously are commanded to search the Scriptures (Acts xvii. 11 ; 2 Tim. iii. 15-17 ; John V. 39), and to give a reason for their faith (1 Pet. iii. 15), and to resist the authority even of legitimate church rulers when it is opposed to that of the Lord of conscience. Acts iv. 19, 20.

(3.) The " Church" which Christ promises to guide into all truth and to pre«erve from fatal error is not a hierarchy or a body of officers, but the body of the "called'' or "elect" — the body of believers as such. 1 John ii. 20, 27 ; 1 Tim. iii. 15 ; Matt. xvi. 18 ; Eph. V. 27 ; 1 Pet. ii. 5 ; Col. i. 18, 24.

(4.) Those who claim, as the successors of the apostles, to exercise this authority, are utterly destitute of all tb.e "signs of an apostle." 2 Cor. xii. 12 ; 1 Cor. ix. 1 ; Gal. i. 1, 12; Acts i. 21, 22. While provision was made for the regular perpetuation of the offices of deacon and

presbyter (1 Tim. iii. 1-13), there was no direction given for the perpetuation of the apostolate. They are utterly without credentials.

The question as to the right of the civil magistrate to impose religious articles of faith or rules of worship will recur again under Chapter xxiii., § 3. It hence follows —

3d. That it is a great sin, involving at the same time sacrilege, and treason to the human race, for any man or set of men to arrogate the prerogative of God and to attempt to bind the consciences of their fellow-men by any obligation not certainly imposed by God and revealed in his word. At the same time it is a sin of disloyalty to God, and a violation of our own nature as moral and rational beings, to yield to any such imposition, and to accept as a matter truly binding the conscience anything not authoritatively taught and imposed in the Scriptures.

4th. It is of the highest importance, on the other hand, clearly to understand that Christian liberty is not an absolute liberty to do as we choose, but a regulated liberty to obey God without hindrance fi'om man. It is a freedom from usurped authority, in order that we may be the more perfectly subject to the only legitimate authority. It is hence absurd, as well as wicked, for a man to make his Christian liberty to obey only God a plea to disobey God, as he does whenever he violates any of the principles of natural right or of revealed truth which express at once the unchangeable nature and the all-perfect will of God. There can be no liberty which sets a man independent of that will ; and this is always the will of God concerning us, even our sanctification. 1 Thess. iv. 3.

CHRISTIAN LIBERTY — LIBERTY OF CONSCIENCE. 363

Christian liberty is also further limited by the mutual duties we owe one another. The eating of meat offered to idols is in itself a thing indifferent, because not either commanded or forbidden. The Christian, therefore, is at liberty either to eat or not to eat. But Paul commands the Corinthians to " take hvod lest by any means this liberty of theirs becomes a stumbling-block to them that are weak." 1 Cor. viii. 9. To allow this would be a sin. The Christian, therefore, may be at liberty to eat or not to eat, but he is not at all at liberty so to use his liberty that his fellow-man is injured thereby. The liberty ceases to be liberty and becomes licentiousness when it transcends the law of God or infringes upon the rights of our fellows.

5th and 6th. Since both the Church and the State are divine institutions, it follows necessarily that the authority of the officers of each, when acting legitimately within their respective spheres, represents the authority of God and binds the Christian to obedience for conscience' sake. It follows also that both the civil magistrate and the ecclesiastical courts must have the right of enforcing obedience by a mode of discipline appropriate to both spheres of authority. These matters, however, come up appropriately under Chapters xxiii., xxv. and xxx.

The liberty pleaded for in our Confession is not absolute and uncontrollable. To assert that men have a right to think and act as they please, without respect to the moral law, and without being responsible to God, would be atheistical. And, if men are considered as socially united, and as placed under government, their natural rights, in religious as well as in civil things, must be Hable to restraint and regulations, so far as the interests and>Bnds of society require. Accordingly, the Confession, in the above sections, proceeds to guard the doctrine of liberty of conscience against abuse, first, in refer- .- ence to the authority of God in his law ; and, secondly ^ in reference to the authorities on earth, civil and ecclesiastical. With respect to the former, it declares, that " they who, upon pretence of Christian liberty, do practise any sin, or cherish any lust, do thereby destroy the end of Christian liberty." God has not liberated the conscience from the obligation of his own law ; on the contrary, he requires every one to yield implicit and prompt obedience to all things whatsoever he has commanded. To plead for a liberty to practise any known sin, is to plead for licentiousness ; and for persons to indulge themselves in any corrupt affections and practices, under a pretence of Christian liberty, is to " use their liberty for an occasion to the flesh," With respect to the latter, the Confession mentions certain things for which persons of a certain description may be proceeded against, both by the civil and ecclesiastical authorities. It is to be observed, however, that the intention of this section is not to lay down the extent of the provinces of these powers, but only to re- (^ move the plea of conscience ; and it ought to be understood, in consistency with their acting each in its own province, without the one interfering with the causes which come under the cognizance of the other. Although civil rulers may restrain, and, when occasion requires, may punish the more flagrant violations of the first table of the moral law, such as blasphemy, the publishing of blasphemous opinions, j and the open and gross profanation of the Sabbath ; yet they o

210 CONFESSION OF FAITH. [^CHAP. XX.

are to repress these evils, not formally as sins, which is the prerogative of God, nor as scandals, in which light they come under the cognizance of the Church, but as crimes and injuries done to society.

All sound Presbyterians disclaim all intolerant or compulsory measures with regard to matters purely religious. They maintain that no man should be punished or molested on account of his religious opinions or observances, provided there is nothing in these hurtful to the general interests of society, or dangerous to the lawful institutions of the country in which he lives. The section now under consideration, however, has sometimes been represented as arming the civil magistrate with a power to punish good and peaceable subjects purely on account of their religious opinions and practices, or as favourable to persecution for conscience' sake. In vindicating the Confession from this serious charge, we shall avail ourselves of the judicious r^jnarks of Dr M'Crie. " The design of section fourth," says that eminent author, " is to guard against the abuse of the doctrine" of liberty of conscience " in reference to public authority. ^ 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, they who, upon pretence of Christian liberty, shall oppose any lawful power, or the lawful exercise of it, whether it be civil or ecclesiastical, resist the ordinance of God.' He who is the Lord of the conscience has also instituted the authorities in Church and State; and it would be in the highest degree absurd to suppose that he has planted in the breast of every individual a power to resist, counteract, and nullify his own ordinances. When public and private claims interfere and clash, the latter must give way to the former ; and when any lawful authority is proceeding lawfully within its line of duty, it must be understood as possessing a rightful power to remove out of the way everything which necessarily obstructs its progress. The Confession proceeds, accordingly, to state : 'And for their publishing of such opinions, or maintaining of such practices, as are contrary to the light of nature, or to the known principles of Christianity, whether concerning faith, worship, or conversation, or to the power of godliness ; or such erroneous opinions or practices as, either in their own nature or in the manner of publishing and maintaining them, ai-e destructive to the external peace and order which Christ hath established in the Church; they may lawfully be called to account, and proceeded against by the censures of the Church, and by the power of the civil

magistrate.' Now, this does not say that all who publish such opinions, and maintain such practices as are mentioned, may be proceeded against, or punished (if the substitution of this word shall be insisted for) by the civil magistrate ; nor does it say that any good and peaceable subject shall be made liable to this process simply on the ground of religious opinions published, and practices maintained by him. For, in the frst place, persons of a particular character are spoken of in this paragraph, and these are very different from good and peaceable subjects. They are described in the former sentence as ^ they who oppose lawful power, or the lawful exercise of it,* and ' resist the ordinance of God.' The same persons are spoken of in the sentence under consideration, as appears from the copulative and the relative. It is not said, * Any one for publishing,' &c., but, ' they who ojypose any lawful power,' &c., ' for their publishing,' &c. In the second place, this sentence specifies some of the ways in which these persons may become chargeable with the opposition mentioned, and consequently * may be called to account ;' but it does not assert that even they must or ought to be prosecuted for every avowed opinion or practice of the kind referred to. All that it necessarily implies is, that they may be found opposing lawful powers, or the lawful exercise of them in the things specified ; and that they are not entitled to plead a general irresponsibility in matters of that kind. Notwithstanding such a plea, ' they may be called to account, and proceeded against,' For, be it observed, it is not the design of this paragraph to state the objects of Church censure or civil prosecution ; its proper and professed object is to interpose a check on the abuse of liberty of conscience, as operating to the prejudice of just and lawful authority. It is not sin as sin, but as scandal, or injurious to the spiritual interests of Christians, that is the proper object of Church censure ; and it is not for sins as such, but for crimes, that persons become liable to punishment by magistrates. The compilers of the Confession were quite aware of these distinctions, which were then common. Some think that if the process of the magistrate had been limited to offences ' contrary to the light of nature,' it would have been perfectly justifiable ; but the truth is, that it would have been so only on the interpretation now given. To render an action the proper object of magistratical punishment, it is not enoHgh that it be contrary to the law of God, whether natural or revealed ; it must, in one way or another, strike against the public good of society. He who * provides not for his own, especially those of his own house,' sins against ' the light of

212 CONFESSION OF FAITH. QciIAP. XXI.

nature,' as also does he who is ' a lover of pleasures more than of God ;' but there are few who will plead that magistrates are bound to proceed against, and punish every idler and belly-god. On the other hand, there are opinions and practices ' contrary to the known principles of Christianity,' or grafted upon them, which, either in their own nature, or from the circumstances with which they may be clothed, may prove so injurious to the welfare of society in general, or of particular nations, or of their just proceedings, or of lawful institutions established in them, as to subject their publishers and raaintainers to warrantable coercion and punishment. As one point to which these may relate, I may mention the external observance and sanctification of the Lord's-day, which can be known only from ' the principles of Christianity,' and is connected with all the particulars specified by the Confession, ' faith, worship, conversation, the power of godliness, and the external order and peace of the Church.' That many other instances of a similar desci'iption can be produced, will be denied by no sober-thinking person who is well acquainted with Popish tenets and practices, and with those which prevailed among the English sectaries during the sitting of the Westminster Assembly; and he who does not deny this, cannot be entitled, I should think, upon any principles of fair construction, to fix the stigma of persecution on the passage in question."*