LETTER VIII.

ON THE RIGHT OF PRIVATE JUDGMENT AND LIBERTY OF CONSCIENCE.

SIR,

In reference to what was advanced in my last letter, you will, I presume, be disposed to enquire, how the power and authority of the Church can be made to square with private judgment? I reply, that with that I have nothing at all to do, for one very substantial reason, because the Word of God, which you pretend is your only rule of faith and practice, says just nothing at all on the subject. Your dispute is not with the Church, but with the Lord Jesus Christ, for not having said, in his Word, any thing about a difficulty in reconciling the private judgment of the believers with the judgment of the authorities which he has appointed. One thing is certain, which is, that a correct private judgment, though at perfect liberty, will as surely agree with the Church, as it would in the exercise of the same perfect liberty, agree with the conclusions of Euclid."

The rules given by St. Paul to Timothy and Titus, for the government of the Church, are absolute; they have no exceptions in favour of private judgment, it would have been ridiculous had such been the case. Timothy and Titus could not, under such circumstances, have enforced a single command given them. Had they commanded “ some that they teach no other

doctrine"* than that which they judged to be the true, the right of private judgment would have been pleaded. Had they, after receiving accusations against any one, proceeded to pass sentence against him, private judgment would have been the plea. Had they rebuked any one, the right of private judgment would have been urged. Had they proceeded to reject a man whom they judged a Heretic, the right of private judgment would have again interfered. In short, whatever they might have commanded or objected to, the plea of private judgment would always have overruled it. The Apostolic Epistles would have been. useless, and the exercise of Ministerial Authority altogether a mere farce. Pleading for the undue exercise of the right of private judgment, seems to me synonymous with pleading for unbounded licentiousness, for actions are but thoughts brought forth. If a man think-if it be according to his private judgment that he shall do God service by killing another, he will soon put his thoughts into action; and according to your fancied right of private judgment, why has he not a right to do so? That blaspheming, independent Oliver Cromwell, in whom you so much glory, went into Scotland, and destroyed thousands of the poor loyal Scotch, and had the infernal impudence to call it "the work of the Gospel." And no doubt, in his "private judgment," he thought he was doing God service; as it is written, "the time cometh that whosoever killeth you, will think that he doeth God service."+

One thing is very clear, Sir, that Ministerial authority must be exercised, and the Commands which God has given to his Ministers must be enforced by them, let what will become of the right of private judgment. It remains for you to reconcile your pretended right of private judgment with the exercise of that Scriptural authority vested by God in the Church. It remains for you to draw the line of demarcation be

It

tween them, Scripturally saying to the advocates of each," thus far saith the Word of God you shall come, and no further." It remains for you to describe the extent, and define the limits of the right of private judgment, supporting all your arguments from the Word of God, taking care so to " expound one place of Scripture that it be not repugnant to another." appears to me, that when persons take upon them the profession of Christianity, they at once give up their right of private judgment, and all their real or fancied natural rights of every description whatever. All their individual tastes, inclinations, whims, and fancies,-all those arbitrary and selfish dispositions, disobedient, ambitious, and rebellious tempers, which prevent them from acknowledging "subjection to one another in the fear of the Lord," are all to be renounced. They, thenceforward, obey them that have the rule over them, and submit themselves in humble obedience to the commands of Christ, and for his sake, and exercise themselves in "casting down imaginations or reasonings, (oysous) and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ."* The exercise of private judgment appears from this passage to be very narrowly limited, for not only every action, but every thought is to be brought into captivity to the obedience of Christ. And every true and humble Christian, for the sake of union and the peace of God's Church, will "submit himself to every ordinance of man for the Lord's sake;" and should there be some things ordained by the Rulers of the Church, not forbidden by the Scripture, about which he may sincerely entertain some few scruples, yet he ought to submit to the practice of them, rather than to produce schisms and discord in the Church of Christ. He had better be a little uneasy himself, than to disobey those who have the rule over him, and disturb the peace and harmony of the

* 2 Cor. x. 5.

whole Church. Although the Church may not, in his estimation, be infallible; yet he cannot think without the greatest presumption, but that she is far more likely to be right than himself. He cannot accuse the Church of error, without setting up his own private judgment above the judgment of the Church, and assuming that superiority over the Church, which he blames the Church for assuming over him: thus, considering himself, or his own private judgment, as possessing that very infallibility which he denies to the Church; or, (if I may so speak,) considering himself more infallible than the Church. But how contrary this to the precepts of the Apostle, "Let nothing be done through strife, or vain glory; but in lowliness of mind let each esteem other better than themselves."*

In order to invalidate the authority of the rulers of the Church, you allege the words of Christ to his Apostles, when they were striving about superiority over each other, "Ye know that the Princes of the Gentiles exercise dominion over them, and they that are great exercise authority upon them. But it shall not be so among you, but whosoever will be great among you let him be your Minister: and whosoever shall be chief among you, let him be your servant." I am sure, Sir, you well know that these words are nothing at all to your purpose. Had they been generally addressed to a mixed multitude of Ministers and hearers, they would have been decidedly in your favour. But such was not the case; they were addressed exclusively to the Twelve Apostles, who had been striving amongst themselves which should be the greatest; and Christ in order to prevent such strife, gave them to understand, that amongst THEM there was no superiority but entire equality. And this is as firmly believed by Churchmen as it is by Dissenters. These words prove nothing at all, either for, or against Churchmen or Dissenters; they have nothing to do with the controversy between

them. They simply prove, that amongst the chief Pastors or Bishops of the Church, there is perfect equality, and may, therefore, be effectually urged against the usurpation of the Bishop of Rome; but are no more opposed to the authority of the chief Pastors of the Church over inferior Ministers and private Christians, than the first verse of St. Matthew's Gospel. I should fancy that the Apostles to whom the words were spoken, understood them quite as well as you or any Dissenting Teacher in the Kingdom; their practice, therefore, affords a sufficient comment upon them. They themselves exercised authority both over inferior Ministers and private Christians, which they certainly would never have done had it been contrary to these words of Christ. A learned Dissenting Commentator very justly says, upon the 26th verse, "This is not to be extended to Christian Churches, as if there was no Ecclesiastical Authority to be used, or any Church Government and power to be exercised; none to rule, whom others are to obey and submit themselves to; but is to be restrained to the Apostles as such, among whom there was an entire equality, being all Apostles of Christ, being equally qualified and sent, and put into the self-same office by him.”*

Tenderness or weakness of conscience is also an excuse which you make for objecting to the rites and ceremonies of the Church. You say that the Word of God is your only rule of faith and practice, and that, therefore, your consciences will not allow you to believe any doctrine or comply with any ceremony that is not expressly commanded in the Scriptures. This is all very plausible, and will do very well in theory, though in practice you entirely depart from it, and are absolutely obliged so to do; because, as has been before observed, the Word of God has not appointed every thing necessary to the performance of Divine Worship, but has left several matters to be determined by the rulers

• See Gill in loco.