The Scriptures the Foundation of Religious Liberty and the Rights of Conscience

Having at our last opportunity expressed a few thoughts in relation to the influence of the Bible upon civil liberty and human governments, I propose to devote the present lecture to a consideration of the influence it exerts upon religious liberty and the rights of conscience. The subject is one of no common magnitude. Who, had he no other alternative, would not cheerfully consent to become the vassal of the most despotic government on the earth, where the rights of conscience were respected, than the citizen of the freest republic, where these rights are denied? Of all human rights, the rights of conscience are the most sacred and inviolate. Civil liberty relates to things seen and temporal, religious liberty to things unseen and eternal 5 civil liberty relates to the body, religious liberty to the soul; and which may be the

more readily dispensed with, no honest and virtuous mind can be long in deciding.

By religious liberty, I mean the right of every man to adopt and enjoy whatever opinions he chooses on religious subjects, and to worship the Supreme Being according to the dictates of his own conscience, without any obstruction from the law of the land. Religious toleration is the allowance of religious opinions and modes of worship, when different from those established by law. Religious liberty disclaims all right of law to control men in their opinions and worship. Religious toleration implies the existence and the modified exercise of power in such control 5 religious liberty implies that no such power exists, and none such is assumed. The most perfect religious liberty exists in that community, where there is no such thing as toleration, because there is no need of it. None desires, or can conceive of a greater degree of religious liberty than that which exists under a government, where one man, and one religious denomination, has as good a right as another, to the free and unobstructed enjoyment of its creed and worship.

If we mistake not, this greatest and most inalienable of all human rights is one of the last that has been respected by civil governments, and has found a refuge only in the well-defined principles and mild auspices of the Christian dispensation. On how many a page of pagan history, do you find the melancholy fact recorded of men who were condemned to the hemlock and the flames, because they would not worship at the shrine of idol gods? The decree of the proud Nebuchadnezzar, that “whosoever falleth not down and worshippeth the golden image that he had set up, should be cast into the midst of a burning fiery furnace,” was an ancient and very common mode of punishment among the oriental nations, inflicted on those who would not worship their idols. Mountains of flame have ascended to heaven, and rivers of blood have been poured upon the earth, as offerings on the altar of a malignant, or misguided intolerance. From the time that Antiochus laid waste the Holy Land, and depopulated the city of Jerusalem, to the destruction of the infants of Bethlehem by Herod 5 from the resurrection of the Saviour, to the destruction of Jerusalem by Titus; from the destruction of Jerusalem, to the accession of Contantine to the throne of the Roman empire 5 the prediction has been most fearfully fulfilled, “There was war in heaven: Michael and his angels fought, and the dragon fought, and his angels.”

The limits of a single lecture do not allow me to speak at length of the spirit of intolerance, which has in various ages of the world been the fruitful source of so much misery and crime. Not volumes merely, but libraries have been written without exhausting the mournful theme. Jews, Mahometans, Christians and pagans have all, though not always with the same ardour and phrensy, been to a greater or less degree, involved in this miserable warfare.

Intolerance toward the Christian faith was early expressed by the Jews, at the very birth of Christianity. As a nation, they were distinguished for their spiritual pride and bigotry, and regarded other nations with a haughty superciliousness, which easily matured to malignity and persecution. Though at the time when our blessed Lord appeared in the flesh, Judaism was in the last stages of decay 5 though it had the form of godliness, and was destitute of its power, and had indeed become a sort of practical infidelity j it summoned and collected all its remaining vigour to oppose the gospel of the Son of God. Though it was split up into a great variety of sects and parties; yet fearful of the influence of Christianity, jealous of its power, trembling for their own prerogative, the Jewish priests and rulers lost no opportunity of indulging themselves, not only in the extremes of contumely and abuse against the Christians, but did not hesitate to persecute them to the death. The Pharisees were formalists; the Saducees were infidels 5 the Essenes were enthusiasts and mystics — deeply imbued with the Philosophy of the Platonic School, and regarding even their own law as a mere allegorical system of mysterious truths. But like Herod and Pontius Pilate, afl these jarring sects forgot their mutual and minor alienations in their absorbing enmity to the gospel of Christ. Many of them indeed, like the early disciples, and Saul of Tarsus, and others on the day of Pentecost, saw the insufficiency of their own religion, felt the need of a surer guide, and became the followers of Christ 5 but the mass of the nation were violent and uncompromising in their hostility to the Christian faith. They pursued the infant Saviour from his cradle to Egypt, from Egypt to Nazareth, and from Nazareth to the cross. After having satiated their malignity upon him, they directed it in all its infuriate madness against his disciples. Stephen, James the son of Zebedee, and James the just, who presided over the Church at Jerusalem, were among the early victims of their rage. Sometimes their violence was expressed in threatening; sometimes in rash and headlong counsels 5 sometimes in the imprisonment of the Christians 5 and sometimes in stripes and death. Nor were their persecutions limited to Palestine. Wherever they were scattered throughout the Roman provinces, they became the instigators of those feuds among the populace, and that violence of the magistracy which destroyed so many of the harmless followers of Christ.* The early Christians had no more bitter enemies than the Jews. From the highest seat of power in Jerusalem, down to the lowest publican who sat at the receipt of custom, the embodied efforts of the nation, both in the Holy

* Vide. Mosheim’s Institutes of Ecclesiastical History. land and out of it, were enlisted against Christianity. There was this semblance of apology for the Jews. The God of Abraham had called them out from among the nations with the view of dissociating them from all the varieties and forms of pagan idolatry, and until the coming of the Messiah, of preserving among them the only remnant of the true religion on the earth. They were early taught by God himself to regard all other nations with suspicion 5 to have no intercourse with them 5 and to prohibit their residence among them until they had first renounced their paganism, and become proselytes to the faith and worship of the true God. It is a lame apology; but like one of their own misguided countrymen, they often “did it ignorantly and in unbelief.” They were strongly attached to their own national, religious peculiarities 5 and yet nothing could be more contrary to the genius of their own religion, than the pride, envy and malignity, with which they arrayed those peculiarities against Christianity. Nothing could be more contrary to the light of their own symbols, prophecies, and law. Nothing could be more contrary to the overwhelming testimony that Jesus was the Son of God. And yet they have ever been an intolerant’ people, and have extended their intolerance not less to their own countrymen, who renounced the Jewish religion, than to strangers. Wherever they have been in power, they have always been an intolerant people. When Mordecai was prime minister at the Persian Court under the reign of Artaxerxes Longimaims, “many of the people of the land became Jews, because the fear of the Jews came upon them.” The Jews had authority and they exercised it so effectually, that the Persians professed Judaism through fear. We know too what an iron sceptre their rulers swayed, and under what a reign of terror the nation groaned in subsequent ages. There was no such thing as religious liberty. If any man confessed Christ, he “was put out of the synagogue j” he was pronounced an outlaw 5 his property was confiscated 5 he was denied all the charities of life 5 his person was put beyond the protection of the government 5 and the man that killed him was thought to have done God service.

If from the Jews, we turn to the Mahomedans, we have the same melancholy picture. Like a furious torrent, the religion of the false prophet laid waste Asia, Africa, and a great part of Europe. It was introduced at a period of the world, when the corruptions of Christianity and the divisions throughout Christendom invited the enterprise of some bold, and ardent mind, and when the customs and passions of men, and the circumstances of the times were easily made subservient to such a design. The spirit of intolerance also which existed among the Christians proved a favourable event for the advancement of Mahometanism. Justinian had previously commenced his persecutions; he had destroyed the Samaritans in Palestine j and their posterity probably embraced the new religion out of hatred to the Christians, and in consequence of the severe edicts published against them by the Roman Emperors. The Roman and Persian monarchies were also on the decline 5 and Mahomet had discernment enough to turn all these favourable opportunities to his own advantage. It is scarcely necessary to say, that Mahomet boldly professed to convert the nations by the sword. It was one of the main pillars of his system, that paradise was the reward of extirpating those who would not become his followers. It was his maxim, that “the sword is the key of heaven and of hell.” The Jews were more the objects of his hatred than any other sect. He utterly destroyed them in Arabia, confiscated their property, and subjected them to tortures. He would not condescend to allow them to become his followers, and gave testimony of the hatred he bore them in his last hours. “May God curse the Jews,” said he, “for they have made Temples of the sepulchres of their prophets!” With this exception, the alternative he offered to his enemies was, to acknowledge the true God and his prophet, tribute, or death. And with this alternative, he subdued a great part of the world. His first conquests were in Arabia, Persia and Syria. Subsequently his successors subdued Egypt and Africa, from the Nile to the Atlantic Ocean. After the Saracens became Mahometans, they overran and desolated the Roman empire, and made the most fearful devastation of the Oriental Churches. Not satisfied with these conquests, they penetrated into Spain and France 5 subsequently attached the Turks to their standard, became masters of the fairest portions of Europe, and planted the crescent on the walls of Constantinople. The mildest feature in the religion of Mahomet was, that he did not deny that the followers of any religion might be saved, if their actions were virtuous. And yet strange to say, wherever he came in contact with )/ men, he recognized no rights of conscience, no degree of religious liberty. Wherever his followers went, it was Ismalism, tribute, or death.*

The pagan world too has fiercely set itself against the Lord and against his anointed. With few exceptions, the pagan nations cannot be said to have expressed any great degree of intolerance toward one another. They have been bitter persecutors of the religion of the Old and New Testaments, but not often perecutors of paganism itself. Though plunged in the grossest superstition, and though almost every nation had its own peculiar deities j this variety of gods and religions was rarely the source even of division or animosity. Dr. Mosheim observes, that the Egyptians are an exception to this remark 5 while at the same time he confesses, that” the Egyptian wars, waged to avenge their gods, cannot properly be called religious wars, not being

* Vide. Sale’s Koran — Picart’s Ceremonies, and Herbelot’s Biblioth. Orient. undertaken either to propagate, or to suppress any one form of religion.” The Roman empire, in the days of her pagan princes, became drunk with the blood of Christendom. Before the close of the first century, the power of the gospel was felt throughout that vast empire. But its successes only roused the dormant hostility of its foes. After the demolition of the Jewish State by Vespasian, a series of persecutions against Christianity was commenced, beginning under Nero, in the thirty-first year of the Christian era, and extending to the reign of Dioclesian, including about three centuries of as bitter suffering and cruelty as men were ever called to endure. The Christian religion was deemed a “detestable superstition,” and the Christian name contemptible to a proverb. Under the reign of Nero, no class of men were considered more the enemies of mankind than the Christians 5 and notwithstanding the purity and benevolence of their character, they incurred the hatred of the pagan world, were obnoxious to its fury, torn by wild beasts, consumed by fire, and in such multitudes that the streets of Rome, night after night, were illuminated by the fearful conflagrations. In the latter part of the reign of Domitian, who succeeded to the empire in the year eighty-one, all the horrors of Nero’s persecution were renewed. Under Trajan, the persevering profession of Christianity was by law a capital offence. It was by his order, that Ignatius the bishop of Antioch was carried a prisoner from that city to Rome, and thrown to the wild beasts in the amphitheatre. After Trajan, Marcus Antoninus, though a prince so universally popular that the gratitude of Rome at his death enrolled him among the gods, became the implacable enemy of Christianity, subjected its disciples to torture, and put to death whole churches. It was under his reign that Justin Martyr, Polycarp, the martyrs of Lyons and Vienne, became victims of the ghastly tortures and bloody animosity of the pagans. After him, torrents of blood were shed by Severus, in Africa and Egypt 5 and many a Christian female, like those noble women Felicitas and Perpetua, was stripped, scourged and thrown to the wild beasts, exclaiming, as the latter did to her weeping friends, “Continue firm in the faith, love one another, and be not offended at our sufferings!” After him, the spirit of persecution broke out in all its horrors under Decius, whose cruel and terrible edicts were executed with a variety and intenseness of newly invented suffering. The successor of Decius was Gallus, whose short reign was distinguished by such severity of persecutions and such a collection of human miseries, that Cyprian, the bishop of Carthage, himself a martyr to the Christian faith, thought that the reign of Antichrist was come, and the final judgment near at hand. During the early part of the reign of Valerian, the church found in him a friend and protector 5 but after a short truce of three years, as one of the most memorable instances of the instability of the human character, he commenced a deadly persecution. After Valerian, a general persecution, instigated by the pagan priests, broke out under the reign of Dioclesian, who demohshed the temples of the Christians, burned their sacred books, deprived them of all civil rights and honours, and consigned them to torture and flames. This persecution raged against all sorts of men who bore the Christian name 5 and with the exception of France, pervaded the whole Roman world. As evidence of the severity of this persecution, a coin was struck under the reign of this detestable persecutor, with this inscription, “Nomine Christianorum deleto” — The Christian name extinguished.* Thus was this vast

pagan empire, this colossal power, extending itself from the straits of Gibraltar to the Caspian sea, covering all Europe, and having its territories even in Africa and the south of Britain, combined almost as with the counsels and heart of one man, against he gospel of Christ. All ranks and conditions of men seemed bent on its destruction — -emperors trembling for their crowns, priests for their gold, philosophers for their systems, and the common people, the more terrible for their ignorance and superstitions. It was indeed a dark day to the church. One universal, cry of persecution and death might have been heard from Jerusalem to Ephesus, from Ephesus to Rome, from Rome to the provinces of Gaul.

* Vide Mosheim, Milnor and Lardner, ’

It were devoutly to be wished that we could say with truth, that the Christian Church were herself pure from the spirit of intolerance, and the blood of persecution. It is a most melancholy retrospect to look back upon the slow progress of religious liberty, even in the visible Church of God. The world has no where seen greater evidences of the imperfection of men, of the bhndness of the human heart, of the dangers of an excited state of mind in religious controversies, and of the influence of the spirit of the age and times in which men live, than in the tardy growth of reHgious liberty even under the light of Christian truth. It is indeed a melancholy retrospect to look back upon the very slow progress of religious toleration in our world. The principles of religious liberty seem to have been understood by few of any religious denomination, until a very late period. The human mind seems to have been enveloped in an unaccountable hallucination on this plain subject; and ages and men, otherwise distinguished for discretion, for piety, and even for moral grandeur, have been scarcely less distinguished for an intolerance and bigotry utterly at war with the spirit of Christianity, and a lasting reproach to the Christian name. Not a little watchfulness is necessary, even on the part of the best of men, before they will cultivate a kind spirit toward those who dissent from them on subjects so important as the various topics of their religious faith. No man, and no set of men, know what they will do,

till they have power. The pride of power, and power too over the conscience — a pride which, while it seems to be associated with the love of the truth, is at heart associated with that subtle self-complacency which says, “Stand by thyself for I am holier than thou 5” a pride which, while it conceals its true motives under the pretence of contending earnestly for the faith cannot suppress the ostentatious claim of Jehu, “Come see my zeal for the Lord,” — this is the height, the giddy height from which intolerance and persecution have in every age pronounced the doom of the humble followers of the crucified Saviour. Different departments of the visible Church have differed widely in their views and conduct in relation to this subject. The Romish Church ever has been the great enemy of religious liberty. Witness her assumption of the civil power, when princes bowed at her feet, and received their crowns at her hands; when nations trembled before her, and were anathematized at her pleasure. Witness her slaying of the witnesses for the truth throughout Germany, France and Britain. Witness her persecutions in the valleys of Piedmont and the rocky Alps. Witness the decisions of her councils, the developement of her secret plots and conspiracies, her open invasions and blood. Witness the history of that dark and sanguinary tribunal, the Inquisition. Think of the blood which deluged Bohemia for thirty years. Think of the massacre in the reign of Charles IX. of France, when that heartless prince boasted of having slaughtered three hundred thousand protestants. Advert too, to the intolerance of Louis XIV. and of Queen Mary of England, when the prediction was so memorably verified, that “It was given to the beast to make war with the saints and to overcome them.” Nor has she reformed in principle from that hour to the present 5 but is still the same unchanging enemy to religious liberty, and the rights of conscience, as the actual influence of her doctrines, her precepts, and her practices every where evinces. It was foretold that antichrist should “wear down the saints of the most High,” and that the “scarlet-coloured beast should be drunken with the blood of the saints.” And these predictions have been mournfully fulfilled in the oppression, cruelty and intolerance which have ever distinguished the Church of Rome. Intolerance is the natural and genuine effect of her whole system. “Toleration,” says Bossuet, who was far from being a violent Romanist, “toleration is not a mark of the true Church.”* Uniformly has the “Son of perdition” maintained the right to persecute even unto death, every deviation from his creed, and every secession from his family. By the solemn decisions of his councils, still unrevoked, heresy and schism are “mortal sins.”

But while we say that the Romish Church has

* Bossuet’s History of the Variations of Protestants. been, and still is, the great enemy, with ingenuous shame must we confess that the Protestant Church has not always been the friend of religious freedom. It was no doubt more the fault of the age, than of the man, that Calvin instigated the condemnation of Servetus. But what a comment upon the spirit of the age! The law which condemned heretics to the flames, was retained by the Protestant Churches of England during one hundred and thirty years. And long after Protestantism was finally established at the revolution in Scotland, it framed the solemn League and Covenant for the extirpation of prelacy by the sword. There is no more humbling view than that which is presented by this single feature in the history of the Church. At one moment she is the persecuted of her pagan neighbours j at the next, the persecutor of some of her own family. Scarcely has she rest from her external foes, and the wounds are staunched that were opened by the sword of the unbeHeving, than she herself turns it against her own children! And yet, the bitterness of this spirit has been allayed by the gospel. The vehemence of this fierce orthodoxy has been gradually subsiding, and its unfeeling, icy rigour melting away, in proportion as the Sun of Righteousness has been gaining a gradual ascendancy over the mind 5 and as the Church has become wiser and better, she has become the more consistent friend and advocate of religious liberty.

The principles of religious liberty are clearly revealed in the New Testament. And what are those principles? They are in the first instance lfthat the Holy Scriptures are the onhj source of authority in matters of religion. It is not remote antiquity. It is the Bible. It is not tradition. It is the Bible. Tradition is an indefinite, intangible thing — found any where — found no where. It is not the decision of councils, nor ecclesiastical statutes. It is the Bible. “The word is nigh thee, in thy heart, and in thy mouth.”

Another of these principles is, that the Bible secures to every man the undeniable and inviolable right of private judgment in all matters of religious faith and duty. This was the doctrine of the Great Reformation; this is the doctrine of the New Testament. That sacred Book, does not more clearly reveal the obligations to faith and obedience, than it asserts the right of individual thought and opinion founded on the principle of individual, personal responsibility. This the Church of Rome denies, and the Scriptures affirm. On this point, they have been, and still are at issue. On this point also the Church of God has, from age to age, been at issue with civil governments, instigated as they have been by ecclesiastical establishments, to interpose the power of the secular arm to secure uniformity in belief and modes of worship. But what is more evident from the New Testament, than that men are, in this respect, responsible not to any secular tribunal, but to God alone; that the Bible is the only infallible standard, and the Author of the Bible the only Judge? The Scriptures commend those, who, with a noble independance of thought and Berean character, brought even the instructions of inspired apostles to the unerring authority of God’s holy word. They invite men to read and hear for themselves; humbly and prayerfully to examine every religious subject, and employ all their powers in investigating the truth j and when they have done so, solemnly, and in the fear of God, to form their own opinions. They require them to form, not a wrong judgment, but a right one, and make them responsible to the Searcher of hearts for the judgment they form. God gives them light, and bids them beware how they pervert, or abuse it, or call it darkness. Prejudice, and partiality, and hostility to the truth he allows no man to exercise. None may form his judgment without evidence, nor in opposition to evidence, but according to evidence 5 and if he fails to do this, he must answer it to his Maker. “To his own Master he standeth, or falleth.” For this high prerogative God has formed him, and given him a supernatural revelation, and laid the solemn injunction upon his conscience, “prove all things j hold fast that which is good.” The Bible gives no man, or set of men, dominion over human faith. The apostles themselves expressly disclaimed this authority. The maxim of the prophets was, “to the law and the testimony.” The direction of the Saviour stands out in living characters before the world, “call no man master, for one is your master, even Christ.” There is no thought enstamped more legibly on the pages of Holy Writ than the individual, personal responsibility of every subject of the divine government. “If thou be wise, thou shalt be wise for thyself 5 but if thou scornest, thou alone shall bear it.” “Every one of us shall give an account of himself unto God.” “Every man shall be judged according to his works 5” works that are the sole expositor of his character, because they are the result of affections that indicate him to be the enemy, or the friend of righteousness, as they have grown out of his views of divine truth. There would be some semblance of reason in submitting our religious opinions to the dictation of men, if they could assume our responsibility and stand in our place when we stand in the judgment; if they could suffer in our stead when we and our principles are condemned at the last day. I know men may greatly abuse the liberty of forming their own religious opinions. They have done so to their souls undoing. I know too that one of the great stratagems of the deceiver is this boasted liberty, and that many swerve from the faith through the fear of not thinking for themselves. But much as this artifice of the destroyer is to

be detested, better had the right of private judgment be abused, than not enjoyed. There is no right, without its corresponding obligation. The man who abuses the right of private judgment has fearful responsibilities. Let him see to them. It is at his peril, if “he receives not the love of the truth, that he may be saved.”

Another of the great principles of religious liberty as disclosed in the New Testament is, that religion is a spiritual system and must he promoted by a m,oral and spiritual influence, A man’s opinions do not admit of coercion. You may coerce his professions, but not his judgment. You may compel him to acknowledge that he believes what he does not believe; you may make him a hypocrite 5 but you cannot make him a Christian. You cannot reach his understanding by pains and penalties, nor by any means of this sort give vigour to his conscience, or affect his heart. You may awaken resistance 5 you may rouse enmity 5 you may give hardihood to his obduracy and make him patient in suffering 5 but you cannot change his views, nor impart holiness of heart, or life. These are produced by the blessing of God upon his own truth. Men have a part to act in securing this result, but it is of no coercive kind. They may reason, expostulate, persuade, but it belongs not to men to compel. The field of argument and impartial investigation is the arena where the truth has ever won her most splendid victories. Christianity is no gainer, but has been uniformly the looser by calling in the aid of the secular arm. There never was a greater error than in supposing that the interests of truth and piety were thus advanced. We may be sincerely desirous to deliver men from their intellectual and moral aberrations; we may oppose every system of delusion and wickedness, and endeavour to break the bondage of the prince of darkness; but physical force is not the way to accomplish this benevolent end. If you would promote error, persecute it. If you would establish false religions on a more permanent basis than they have yet occupied 5 if you would enlist the sympathies of men in favour of a cause, which otherwise would have no sympathy; persecute it — send its advocates to the stake and gibbet — persecute it to the death. “Persecution is disgraceful to those who inflict, but honourable to those who suffer it. It throws around them the charm and glory of a relationship to the apostles and prophets, and men of whom the world was not worthy.” Error is not worthy of such an honour. I would not persecute error. I would not persecute at all; but, if there must be persecution, let truth have the honour of being the victim. There is a God in heaven, and a conscience in the bosoms of men 5 and it were infinitely better for the cause of righteousness to suffer wrong, than to do wrong. “In meekness instructing those who oppose themselves, peradventure God will give them repentance, to the acknowledgement of the truth,” — this is the way the Scriptures recommend of opposing error, destroying false religions, and turning the world to the service and worship of the true God.

There is still another very obvious principle of religious liberty disclosed in the New Testament 5 and that is, that Civil Government as such, has no other concern with religion than to respect the rights of conscience, and extend to men of all religious names and denominations its impartial protection. This is all that the true religion soHcits of the secular power. This is not religious toleration merely, but religious liberty. I am acquainted with no writer who has discussed this single point with so much ability, as the celebrated John Locke. He contended with the monstrous error, to which we have already referred, and which was so rife during the reigns of the first and second Charles, and even through the intervening revolution in the days of Cromwell, that men ought to be coerced by pains and penalties inflicted by the civil power, to profess a definitely prescribed form of religious doctrines, and to conform themselves to one particular formulary of religious worship. His object was to draw the lines of demarcation between the Church and the State 5 to distinguish between the powers of civil government and the powers of religion 5 and to show that the one is exclusively concerned in promoting the spiritual and eternal interests of men, and that the other has the care of the Commonwealth. The province of the civil magistrate, is to secure to all the members of the body politic, the just enjoyment of life, liberty, reputation and property. This is the whole of its jurisdiction. The care of souls is not committed to the civil magistrate j any more than to other men. The power of the civil magistrate, consisting only in outward force, is of such a kind that it can never be applied for religious purposes, in any other way than by the impartial execution of equal laws for the protection of religious liberty. The Church is a different society, formed for different objects, and acting within altogether a different jurisdiction. It is a spiritual community, and clothed with no temporal power. Its objects are the maintainance of the true religion and the true worship of God in the world. It has its principles and laws, and is bound by the authority of Jesus Christ as its only King and Head. The Church has no more power in the State, than the State has in the Church. They are perfectly distinct organizations, are pursuing different objects, and exercise a different authority. The liberties of the State are nevier in greater jeopardy than when the Church is invested with civil power j while the liberties of religion and the Church are sure to be endangered by giving ecclesiastical power to the State. The Church never acts more out of character, or more unworthy of her high calling, than when she arrogates to herself the authority of civil government, and endeavours by fire, or sword, or civil disabilities of any kind to coerce men to receive her doctrines and worship. “My kingdom,” says the Saviour, “is not of this world 5 if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight.” The Church has no secular organization J no secular head; no secular nature. She may not oppose force to force, as the kingdoms of this world do; nor may she exercise the force which this world exercises even in the execution of her own laws.

Such are some of the leading principles of religious liberty as contained in the New Testament. The world is under lasting obligation for the illustration and defence of these principles to the independent churches in Great Britain. It was among them that the immortal Locke became so deeply imbued with that manly liberality of sentiment which distinguished him above the men of his age. Lord King, himself of the established church, in his life of this celebrated philosopher, has the liberality to say, “By the independent divines, who were his instructors, Locke was taught those principles of religious liberty which they were the first to disclose to the world. — As for toleration, or any true notion of religious liberty, or any general freedom of conscience, we owe them not in the least degree to what is called the church of England. On the contrary, we owe all these to the independents in the time of the commonwealth, and to Locke, their most illustrious and enlightened disciple.” Nor let us withhold the honour that is due to the personal exertions of Cromwell himself There never was a firmer friend to the rights of conscience than Ohver Cromwell. It was his interest in the cause of protestantism that induced him, on his assumption of the protectorate to choose an alliance with Louis XIV. rather than with Spain and Austria. He made his friendship valuable to France and Holland, that by their means he might exert the greater influence in behalf of religious liberty throughout Europe. Nor was his policy unavailing. He well nigh controlled the court of Versailles during the early part of the reign of Louis. It was the common remark in Paris, that Mazarin, the prime minister of Louis, “had less fear of the devil, than of Oliver Cromwell.” The suffering protestants throughout Europe, and even from the confines of Hungary and Transylvania looked with hope toward the English commonwealth. The suffering Vaudois, under the duke of Savoy, long and gratefully remembered his merciful and princely interpositions in their behalf, amid the mouldering ruins of their depopulated villages. Besides appointing a fast, and a general collection throughout England for these confessors, he wrote to the duke of Savoy, to the king of France, to the kings of Sweden and Denmark, and to all the protestant princes in Europe with the view of arresting these fearful persecutions. Nor “was any part of his negociation with foreign princes more acceptable to his country than this.”*

* For a full account of this, see “The Protectorate of Oliver Cromwell, and the State of Europe, during the early part of the reign of Louis XIV. illustrated in a series of letters between Dr. John Pell, resident ambassador at the Swiss Cantons, Sir Samuel Morland, Sir William Lockhart, Mr. Secretary Thurloe, and other distinguished men of the time,” by Robert Vaughan, D. D. of London University.

Nor do I refer to these declarations with the less reluctance, because I am a presbyterian. It must be confessed that the presbyterians of Britain were as tenacious of civil power as the episcopalians 5 nor was there any denomination of Christians at that period, except the independents, who, as a religious body, recognized to their full extent, the sacred rights of conscience, and who while in power accorded to others the rights which they advocated for themselves under oppression. This praise is awarded them by distinguished historians, who were themselves ministers and members of the established church.* And it is in no small degree to the influence of this very class of men, that the broad principle of religious liberty holds so prominent a place in the constitution of the American States. Such too are the principles distinctly recognized in the Confession of Faith and Form of Government of the presbyterian church in this land. We have never, in this respect trodden in the steps of transatlantic presbyterianism. While we give an honest preference to our own doctrines and discipline, we claim no infallibility 5 we invest ourselves with no jus divinum and cheerfully accede to others the same rights and immunities, both civil and rehgiou’s, which we claim for ourselves. Our excellent Confession of Faith explicitly declares,” God alone is Lord of the conscience, and

* Grant’s History of the English Church Sects; Introduction to Col. Hutchinson’s Memoirs; Brodie’s British Empire. hath left it free from the doctrines and commandments of men, which are in any thing contrary to his word, or beside it, in matters of faith, or worship. So that to believe such doctrines, or to obey such commandments out of conscience, is to betray true liberty of conscience j and the requiring of an imphcit faith and an absolute Wind obedience, is to destroy liberty of conscience and reason also.”

But it will probably be asked, has the church no power — no authority over her own membei’s? Has she no discipline? And may she not admonish, rebuke, censure, and even exclude from her communion those who reject her doctrines, and pay no regard to her worship? She has all this authority, and is bound meekly and firmly to exercise it. She is not a voluntary society, associated upon principles of human invention, but a society divinely instituted and governed by the laws of her redeeming God and King. It is indispensable to her prosperity, that she be governed 5 that she be governed by laws well defined and understood. She must have rules for admitting, controling, and disciplining her members. And her discipline ought to be accordant with the high and sacred ends of her divine institution. “Ecclesiastical laws,” says Mr. Locke, “are to be enforced by exhortations, and advice. Where these fail, there remains nothing farther to be done but that such stubborn and obstinate persons, who give no ground to hope for their reformation, should be cast out and separated from the society. This is the last and utmost force of ecclesiastical authority.” No man should complain, because he is made responsible to the church with which he has voluntarily united himself by irrevocable bonds. Nor should he, when he denounces her doctrines and government, think it a hardship if he is required to acknowledge his offence, or withdraw from her communion. “A man that is an heretic, after the first and second admonition, reject!” “If thy brother shall tresspass against thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone. If he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother. But if he will not hear thee, tell it unto the church; but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican!” But he must liear and if he desires it, must he heard. By the laws of Christ, the most erring and most vile of his professed followers is entitled to a full and impartial trial. To pronounce sentence, or even the mildest judicial admonition, without a hearing, is a direct violation of the great principles of religious liberty, the word of God, and the everlasting law of rectitude. A church can suffer no greater calamity than the loss of such a right. But it were a sad perversion of the truth to plead the rights of conscience for the neglect of wholesome discipline. “The free circulation of the blood, and the proper discharge of all the animal functions, are not more necessary to the health of the body, than the discipline which Christ has instituted, to the spiritual health and prosperity of his body the church.” One sickly sheep infects the flock. And a black flock would the church indeed be, if she were embarrassed and frustrated in attempts to reclaim, or exclude those who are unfit for her fellowship. “How can two walk together, except they be agreed?” Men who are “tossed to and fro and carried about with every wind of doctrine,” may not, because they cannot have any fellowship with that truth which is one and immutable. I have given you evidence, by an almost thirty years ministry among you, that I am not insensible that the peace of the church is broken, her strength divided, and her vigor impaired by foolish contentions: but contentions for substantial truth are not foolish. Men may “wrap up their deceptions in scriptural phrases, and even in language which is consecrated by the usage of the Christian Church, and yet be apostles of error.”

There are two extremes in the exercise of a faithful discipline which every Christian Church should cautiously avoid. The first is, that it is a matter of indifference what religious principles a man adopts and what form of worship he prefers. The Bible contains essential principles — principles which constitute the very elements and essence of the gospel 5 which must be believed and loved in order to salvation j and which are so fundamental, that if any one of them should be denied, the denial would, in its legitimate consequences, subvert the entire method of salvation through Jesus Christ. It forms no part of that religious liberty that is founded on the word of God, that it is of no consequence what a man beheves. No where is this thought, or feeling encouraged in the Scriptures, but every where discouraged, frowned upon and denounced. “Keep specially clear,” says a forcible writer. “of uncommon pretenders to charity. Satan will mask his designs as long as he can, and so will all his ministers. Believe that God is love, that he is the great and essential charity. Be satisfied then with as much charity as he has shown, and do not think of improving upon your Maker by entertaining and expressing a more charitable opinion of sinners than himself”

The other extreme is to have no charity at all. There are things spoken of in the Bible, which are neither fundamental to the gospel, nor essential to salvation, and about which good men may differ. Men may be ignorant and uninformed in these things, and yet be saved. And I would not dare to say, that they may not misunderstand and pervert these things, and yet be saved, any more than I would dare to say how much indwelHng sin is compatible with true holiness of heart, or how much remaining unbeHef is consistent with saving faith. The least, truth perverted, as well as the least remaining sin in the heart, is without excuse 5 while neither of them proves that the bosom in which they dwell has no interest in the Son of God. I hold it one of the great duties of a Christian, to judge severely of himself 5 of others, charitably. “Judge not that ye be not judged. For with what judgment ye judge ye shall be judged; and with what measure ye meet, it shall be measured to you again.” I may not necessarily break charity with men as Christians, with whom I would not deem it expedient, nor for edification to be united in the same ecclesiastical connexions. I would hope not to sympathise with their errors 5 but I would charitably impute their errors to causes which may exist in the hearts of good men. “Humanum est errare.” I may err, as well as they.

“Hanc veniam petimusque damusque vicissim.”

The flock of Christ will be a little flock indeed, even after it is all gathered in, if there be not many sheep that are not of our own fold. The many mansions in our Father’s house will be but sparsely inhabited, if it be not found at the last day that God our Saviour can hold fellowship in the Church above, with not a few with whom it is not for edification for us to maintain ecclesiastical connexions in the Church below. The charity that “rejoiceth not in iniquity, but rejoiceth in the truth,” also “beareth all things, believeth all things, hopeth all things.” As men may be heretics, and excluded from the Church without being delivered over to the secular arm, so they may err in judgment without being heretics. They may diflfer in their religious opinions, and yet be Christians 5 they may differ without animosity, without the fury of intolerance, without having recourse to courts of law, and without disturbing either the public peace, or the charities of social life.

I do not know that I have expressed your views, my young friends, in the present lecture. For myself, I solicit no greater liberty of conscience than this, and I will not be satisfied with less. It is impossible for the Church to flourish either in alliance with the civil power, or controlled by its authority, except so far forth as it extends an impartial protection to her civil rights. Nor is it less impossible for her to flourish while composed of essentially jarring materials — of the mingled iron and clay — of men who believe and profess, and men who disbelieve, and deny, and ridicule the fundamental doctrines of the gospel.

The liberty of conscience is your birthright. You are “not children of the bondwoman, but of the free.” There is nothing in the Scriptures which debars you from full inquiry into all truth, or which demands of you an assent to its doctrines without an examination of the evidence that they come from God. You boast of this liberty. But it is this which renders you so fearfully responsible. It is this which gives the divine government such resistless claims upon you, if you turn your liberty into licentiousness, and under the specious pretence of this right, become sceptics, or deists, or the enemies of God and his truth, by whatever name they may be called.