Rational inquiry in religion

Seven sermons by Jonathan Mayhew, pastor of the West Church in Boston, 1748

Seven sermons upon the following subjects; viz. The difference betwixt truth and falshood, right and wrong. The natural abilities of men for discerning these differences. The right and duty of private judgement. Objections considered. The love of God. The love of our neighbour. The first and great commandment, &c. Preached at a lecture in the West Meeting-House in Boston, begun the first Thursday in June, and ended the last Thursday in August, 1748. / By Jonathan Mayhew, A.M. Pastor of the West Church in Boston.

Mayhew, Jonathan, 1720–1766. 

From Evans Early American Imprints in Wordcruncher (18c: 1740s; 1749, N05074,1¶)

Note this sentence herein: A burning faggot may set our bodies in a light blaze; but it has no tendency to illuminate the understanding.

_____

SERMON III. The Right and Duty of private Judgment asserted.

LUKE XII. 54—57.

And he said also to the people, When ye see a cloud rise out of the west, straightway ye say, There cometh a shower; and so it is.

And when ye see the south wind blow, ye say, There will be heat; and it cometh to pass.

Ye hypocrites, ye can discern the face of the sky, and of the earth: but how is it, that ye do not discern this time?

Yea, and why even of your selves judge ye not what is right?

HAVING attempted to show, in two former discourses up on these words, That there is a natural difference betwixt truth and falshood, right and wrong: And, That men are naturally endowed with faculties proper for the discerning of these differences: I proceed now to show in the

[Page 42] IIId. And last place, That men are under obligation to exert these faculties; and to judge for themselves in things of a religious concern. It cannot be doubted but that this is fairly implied in my text. For the words evidently carry in them a severe censure and reproof of the persons to whom they were originally addressed, on account of their neglecting to judge for themselves concerning our blessed Saviour, and his doctrine. He makes this neglect, an argument of their hypocrisy, one of the basest vices—Ye hypocrites, ye can discern the face of the sky—and why, even of yourselves judge ye not what is right?

THE subject before us being the duty of private judgment, I shall briefly explain what I intend by persons judging for themselves; or by freedom of thought and inquiry in religious matters: And then show, that this is what we are all obliged to.

Now what I intend by a man’s judging for himself with freedom, and exerting his own faculties in the search of truth and right, may be comprised under the following particulars—

THAT he suspends his judgment intirely concerning the truth or falshood of all doctrines; and the fitness or unfitness of all actions; ’till such time as he sees some reason to determine his judgment one way rather than the other. 

He that desires to come to the knowledge of the truth, puts himself in a state of indifferency with regard to the point to be judged of; that so his mind being as it were, in aequilibrio, his judgment may be determined solely by reason and argument. He does not bring his old prejudices and prepossessions to determine the point; but comes prepared, by an unbiassed mind, to receive the impressions of reason, and of reason only. 

All propositions are the proper subject of inquiry and examination, except first principles, which are few in [Page 43] number, and which do not extend to any doctrines either of natural or revealed religion, how nearly soever they may be connected with some of both. And therefore, in order to our judging with true freedom, we ought to consider all such doctrines with an eye of indifferency, neither fancying them to be true or false; nor even wishing them to be so, till we see they are connected with, or contrary to, some of those first principles of human knowledge, which being self evident, are not the subject of examination. 

Thus, for example, we ought not to believe that there is, or that there is not a God; that the Christian religion is from God, or an imposture; that any particular doctrine fathered upon it, is really contained in it, or not; or that any particular sect of christians, is in the right, or in the wrong; ’till we have impartially examined the matter, and see evidence on one side or the other. 

For to determine any point without reason or proof, cannot be to judge freely, unless it be in a bad sense of the word. So that suspense or indifferency, is the first thing implied in free inquiry: or, to speak more properly, it is a pre-requisite, and preparatory to it.

AGAIN: The next step towards freedom of examination and judgment, is the exerting of our own reason in weighing arguments and evidences that offer themselves to us, or that are offered by others. He that inquires freely after truth, is not content with barely suspending his judgment till such time as evidence forces it self upon his mind. In this way, a man may perhaps avoid error; but will not gain much knowledge; for truth is coy, and must be courted. 

To gain any considerable degree of knowledge, it is necessary that we are active and vigorous in the pursuit of it; that we make use of all the means and helps to knowledge that are within our reach; that we inquire into facts; that we view things in different lights, not taking up satisfied with first appearances; that we weigh the arguments that are brought to support any doctrine or practice; that we balance them with contrary arguments; and the like.

ANOTHER thing implied in the freedom of judgment is, that a man honestly embraces for truth, whatever there appears evidence for, without endeavouring to evade it, to shift it off, or stifle the conviction of his own mind. 

To inquire into evidence, is to no purpose, unless we follow it wherever it leads, and chearfully receive the truth wherever it is to be found; whatever notions it may contradict; whatever censures it may expose us to. It is an idle and inconsistent thing to examine, if we are determined before hand to retain our former sentiments; to believe as our fore-fathers did, or as any particular body of men does at present. 

A man does not really inquire after truth and right at all, unless he determines from the very first, to have no superstitious veneration for great names; but to yield himself up to evidence wherever it appears; and how much soever it might have contributed to his present interest and reputation to have embraced other tenets.

LASTLY: Judging with freedom and impartiality, implies, that in giving our assent to any proposition, we give it in proportion to the degree of evidence that appears to support it. All truths are not equally clear and incontestible: Innumerable lie quite beyond our sight; some just down upon our minds; others appear in a strong and convincing light, tho’ not so strong as to exclude all doubt; while others glare upon us with all the force of demonstration. 

Now as there are innumerable degrees of evidence betwixt the lowest probability, and that intuitive certainty which we have of first principles; so a man ought not to give the same degree of assent to every thing he receives for truth; but to proportion his assent to the nature and degree of the apparent evidence, whether it be greater or less. Not to assent to what is, in the lowest degree, probable upon the whole, discovers a backwardness to entertain the truth. 

And, on the other hand, to give an assent to any truth, over and beyond what the nature of its evidence naturally demands and calls forth, is much the same thing with believing without any evidence at all. For all that redundancy of assent, if I may so express it, is mere credulity and rashness: and this is as unbecoming a reasonable creature as obstinacy and perverseness.

HAVING thus briefly explained what I intend by judging for ourselves, with freedom, I proceed now to show, That this is what every man is under obligation to do. This I propose to prove directly by reason and revelation; and then to answer the principal objections that are urged against it.

EACH individual has an interest of his own depending. We find, by experience, that we are all capable of being happy or miserable to a great degree. Pain and pleasure, at least, are private and personal things. And even they that arrogate to themselves the right of judging for us, do not pretend to feel for us also. 

Now if it be of any importance to us to be happy for ourselves, it is of importance to judge for ourselves also; for this is absolutely necessary in order to our finding the path that leads to happiness. Indeed if others can afford us any assistance in finding this path, it is reasonable to make use of it; but not to give ourselves up intirely to their direction. 

It is the greatest folly imaginable, to give ourselves no concern about our own welfare, unless we were certain it is secured to us already, so that we cannot possibly miss of it, which is a supposition contrary to daily experience. We find that our happiness depends, at least in some degree, upon our conduct; and that we often take some wrong step, through ignorance; which ought to be a warning to us to look about us, and take heed to our ways.—Without knowing which is the right path, we can never take it, unless it be by chance; and though we should be so fortunate as to get into it, we cannot have the satisfaction of knowing it.

IN our present imperfect state, such inquiries as the following, become every man that has not yet resolved them in his own mind—‘What is my chief good? Where is the road that will convey me to my happiness? Where shall I find this inestimable jewel? this pearl of great price? In what mountain shall I dig for it? In what ocean shall I dive? 

Amidst the various opinions, and contrary pursuits of mankind, what road shall I myself travel? What course shall I steer? Shall I find my felicity in retirement and solitude? Or in the noise and bustle of the world? Is it to be found in the humble and quiet cottage? Or in proud and envious courts? Is it to be found in peace at home? Or in war abroad? Does it consist in indulging to my animal nature without controul? Or in improving my mind in what some men call wisdom and virtue? 

Shall I seek it in my own country? Or explore some distant region in hopes to find it? Shall I search it upon the seas, or upon the dry land? In the earth beneath, or in the heavens above? In this world, or in some other? Is my spirit immortal? Am I to survive the dissolution of my body, and to live forever in some other state? Or shall this vital spark that thinks, perceives and wills, and is anxious about futurity, be wholly extinguished in a few days, when my body falls to dust? 

Is there any being who created, and who governs the world? Or is this beautiful and stupendous fabrick of the universe, the offspring of chance? And without any guide, overseer or ruler?—a fatherless World, which the next moment may fall into ruins, or into nothing? If there be a God, what is his character? Is he powerful, wise, righteous and good; or is he not? Does my happiness depend upon pleasing and obeying him, and conforming myself to his will? If it does, what is his will? What are his laws? What does he expect of me? What kind of government is it I am under? What is the particular and certain way, in which I may obtain the good-will of this great Parent of the world, in whose favour is life, and whose loving-kindness is better than life?’

THESE, methinks, are such inquiries as every man should endeavour to get some satisfaction about in his own mind—satisfaction of quite another kind than any that can be had barely from the decisions of others concerning them. The questions are too interesting and important to be submitted to the determination of a second person.

BUT were we disposed to leave matters of this consequence to reference, who shall be the judges? There are almost as many opinions in the world, as there are men. The Talapoins of Siam have one system of religion: the Mufti at Constantinople, another: and Christians, a third; and so on. And almost all alledge divine revelation in their own favour. 

There are even some fools who say in their heart, there is no God; and not only in their heart, but repeat it with their lips also. Now shall we submit to the Theists, or to the Atheists? How shall we know on which side the truth lies, without examination? But suppose we embrace Theism, what sect of the Theists shall we fall in with? With those who deny, or those who maintain, a revelation from God? Is it reasonable to give in to either party, before we inquire which has the best of the Argument? But suppose we fall in with the latter, there are several sects of them, the principal of which are Jews, Mahometans and Christians. It cannot be a reasonable part to fall in with one, in opposition to the other two, without reason. 

But suppose we are convinced that the Christian religion is true, do not Christians differ very widely in their sentiments? Do they not differ so much in explaining the doctrines of their common revelation, as to agree in hardly any thing besides the name of Christian? Are they not divided into many sects, the most of which strenuously maintain, that not only truth, but salvation also, is confined to themselves? Do they not deal out their curses mutually with a liberal hand? Are they not continually throwing fire-brands, arrows and death, (not indeed in sport, like other fools, but) in sober earnest?

Now amidst these differences and altercations, what is the part of a reasonable man, but to sit down, and exercise, as well as he can, his […]​ intellectual powers; and so to judge even of himself what is right? 

What system of doctrine—what mode of worship—what form of church-government and discipline, is most agreeable to scripture and reason—what sect of Christians he shall unite with—and whether with any one, in all its minute and distinguishing tenets and usages—? ‘A man must join himself to the true, primitive and catholic church.’ What church is that? all churches lay claim to that title: and the question to be decided is, which of them supports its claim the best? which cannot be decided without previous inquiry. 

‘But there is a living infallible guide upon earth, to whom it is easy to repair; and then we may be sure of being in the right without any farther trouble.’ Where is he? Many deny there is any such unerring guide, and infallible umpire, as confidently as others affirm it. But even those who agree that there is such a sovereign judge of religious controversy, are not yet fully agreed who he is; or whether infallibility be to be found in one single person or more. 

The heads of all sects usually decide disputable matters with full as much assurance and lordliness as it would become infallibility itself to do it, although they do not all, in so many words, pretend to be exempted from a possibility of erring. Those who claim infallibility, often decide and order as if they were fallible: And those who do not claim it, are often full as positive, and given to dominineering as much, as if it unquestionably belonged to them.

WE know the King of Great Britain (or the Queen, in a female reign) is the Supreme Head of the church of England, as by law established; which church claims power to decree rites or ceremonies, and authority in controversies of faith.

BUT his Holiness at Rome thinks this a bold infringement of his prerogative, and universal jurisdiction in ecclesiastical matters. Whose word, then, is to be taken? How shall we act a rational part without judging even of ourselves which is in the right? Or whether either of them be so. 

Indeed there is no doubt but his Holiness is really the Supreme Head of the church of Rome; and, as such, has authority therein in matters of faith, worship and discipline. Thus also the King or Queen of Great Britain, is doubtless the Supreme Head of the truly primitive, apostolical church of England, as lately established by human laws. 

But nevertheless, it may perhaps admit of some dispute whether Jesus Christ is not the Supreme Head of his own church? and consequently, whether these are not three different churches, they having each of them a different Supreme Head? It is of some importance to us to be settled with regard to these points; and they are such as cannot be well determined without some examination, though perhaps a very little may suffice.

THUS it appears that a regard to our own interest ought to put us upon examining and judging for ourselves in religious concerns. The same thing might be argued from the faculty of reason itself, which is common to all. If we suppose an intelligent author of our nature, who had some design in giving us our present constitution, it is plain that his end in endowing us with faculties proper for the investigating of truth and right, was, that we should exercise them in this way. 

Each of our bodily organs, and animal faculties, has an apparent final cause. Our eyes are for seeing; our ears, for hearing; our hands, for handling; our feet, for walking; &c. Nor is it less apparent that our understandings were given us to be employed in the search of truth, and in embracing it. 

Truth is the natural object of reason, as much as any thing else is the proper object of that particular faculty or passion, to which God and nature have adapted it. Our obligation, therefore, to inquire after truth, and to judge what is right, may be found within us, in our own frame and constitution. This obligation is as universal as reason itself; for every one that is endowed with this faculty, is, by the very nature of it, obliged to exercise it in the pursuit of knowledge; especially of moral and religious knowledge. 

All men are not obliged to study the mathematicks, law and physick. But all are obliged to acquaint themselves with their duty—what they owe to God, to their neighbour and themselves. If one man is to think and judge for all the rest of the species, why was reason given to all? why was it not confined to him alone who has a right to use it? In short, we may say with as much propriety, that we are to see only with another’s eyes, hear with another’s ears, speak with another’s tongue, and walk with another’s feet, and neglect our own; as, that we are to think and judge and believe, with another’s understanding.

IT appears, then, that reason is no enemy to free inquiry, and private judgment, in religious matters. And I shall now endeavour to show that the Christian religion is no enemy to it; but, on the contrary, enjoins it upon us as a duty.

OUR Lord Jesus Christ, the author and finisher of our faith, constantly appealed to the senses, and to the reason of mankind, as the proper judges of his miracles, divine mission and doctrine. He did not demand of men an implicit and blind belief in himself, without offering matter of conviction to their understandings; but put them upon examining in a sober rational way, whether he was authorized from heaven, or were an impostor; and so, whether his doctrine were of God, or whether he spake of himself. 

He reasons with the Jews in my text: he blames them for their blind attachment to the Scribes and Pharisees, their spiritual guides; and for not judging for themselves in religious matters. Our Lord, pretended (at least) to prove his divine mission to the unprejudiced reason of mankind in a sober, argumentative way. In disputing with the Jews, he appealed to their ancient writings whose divine authority they acknowledged; and to the miracles which he wrought, in order to convince them that he was the Messiah. This is evident from almost every page of the evangelical history, notwithstanding what the disingenuous author of Christianity not founded upon argument, has confidently asserted upon this subject, taking advantage of what some weak Christians have advanced concerning the nature and grounds of faith. 

Whether the arguments which our Lord used for the conviction of the Jews, were conclusive or not, is a question which I am not now concerned with. But it is plain that he considered them as being so, requiring people to examine them, and to judge whether they were conclusive or not. 

Barely proposing arguments to the consideration of another, is a disclaiming of authority properly so called: for it implies, that the arguments are to be judged of by the reason of him to whom they are proposed. I might bring many passages from the Evangelists, to show that the method which our Lord took to gain proselytes, was to reason them into faith. But I must content myself with quoting one passage only to this purpose, for the present—John V. 31. and onward, 

If I bear witness of myself, my witness is not true [i. e. my testimony in my own favour—my declaring myself to be the Messiah, ought not to be depended upon as true, without farther evidence.] There is another that beareth witness of me—Ye sent unto John, and he bare witness unto the truth—But I have greater witness than that of John; for the works that the Father hath given me to finish, the same works that I do, bear witness of me, that the Father hath sent me—Search the scriptures, for in them ye think ye have eternal life; and they are they which testify of me—There is one that accuseth you, even Moses, in whom ye trust. For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me. But if ye believe not his writings, how shall ye believe my words? 

There cannot be a more explicit appeal than this, to the reason and understandings of men, or a fairer invitation given them to examine and judge for themselves. And this also shows that our Lord aimed at bringing men to believe in him, only by dint of argument. And as our Lord performed his mighty works with a design to beget in those that beheld them, a rational belief, a belief resulting from proper evidence; so the Evangelists committed those facts to writing, that they might have a like effect upon those that had not been eye-witnesses of them—These things are written that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ the Son of God; and that believing, ye might have life through his name. John XX. 31.

THE apostles also constantly incouraged free inquiry, as it is natural for honest undesigning men to do. It is for the interest of some to discourage it, and to keep people muffled up in darkness and ignorance, that so they may submit to their dictates with the more readiness and humility. Their craft is in danger of being detected, and their doctrine, of being exploded, as soon as people have so much presumption as to open their eyes. 

Free inquiry bodes ill to the design which they are ingaged in; for they are sensible it will not be safe for themselves to be knaves any longer than others are fools. But he that has nothing in view but the interest of truth and virtue, desires nothing more, than that persons would give themselves the trouble of a free and impartial examination. 

Now the apostles knowing the goodness of their cause, and following the example of their divine Master, made it their practice to incourage liberty and freedom of thought; never intimating, a most of their pretended successors have done, that this is hazardous to men’s souls.

IN the apostolic age there were many impostors and enthusiasts; false pretenders to inspiration, as there are at present, and as there have been in almost every age of the christian church. And for this reason the apostles directed christians to examine the pretensions of all, that so they might distinguish betwixt really inspired persons and deceivers—Thus 1 John iv. 1. 

Beloved, believe not every spirit; but try the spirits, whether they are of God; for many false spirits are gone out into the world. 

No one, surely, will be so absurd as to suppose this was a direction to try deceivers only; and not true prophets and apostles. For this would suppose that they might be known one from the other, without trying them at all: and then no examination of either of them would be necessary. 

"Determine first; and then examine," is the pleasant advice of some grave divines: But the apostles exhorts us to examine all things, before we believe any thing. The Jews at Berea are celebrated, Acts xvii. 10. and onwards for not believing the apostles themselves without critically examining their doctrine, and comparing it with the writings of Moses and the prophets: and in the same passage, an implicit censure at least, is passed upon the Thessalonians, as being indolent, credulous, and too easy of belief. 

The words of the historian are these, And the brethren—sent away Paul and Silas—unto Berea; who coming there, went into the synagogue of the Jews. These were more noble than those of Thessalonica; for they received the word with all readiness of mind: and searched the scriptures daily whether those things were so. 

By their receiving the word with all readiness of mind, nothing more is here intended, than that they gave a ready and candid attention to what Paul and Silas had to say: Afterwards, like prudent and rational men, they examined into the truth of it. And it follows immediately in the next verse—Therefore many of them believed—A natural consequence of a free and impartial inquiry into the grounds of the christian religion. 

I observed above, that the Thessalonians are censured in this passage, for their credulity, and not using suitable precaution in receiving christianity. And it is probable that the apostle Paul had a view at this incurious and over credulous humour of theirs, in his 1 Epistle to them, Chap. v. ver. 21. Prove (or examine) all things, says he; hold fast that which is good. This advice was, indeed, proper for all; but peculiarly so for those who were backward to examine, and forward to believe, these being in the greatest danger of being seduced.

AGAIN, What besides free inquiry after truth and knowledge, does the apostle intend, Phil. xix. 10? And this I pray, that your love may abound yet more and more in knowledge and in all judgment, that ye may approve things that are excellent—(Or as some understand these last words, that ye may try things that differ, and are controverted.) 

To the same purpose are the Words of this apostle, Eph. vi. 14, 15. That we be henceforth no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness whereby they lye in wait to deceive: but speaking the truth in love, &c. 

So. St. John cautions the elect lady and her children, against seducers, and deceivers—Many deceivers are entered into the world—Look to yourselves—9. John 7, 8. The apostle here alludes to those deceivers who confessed not that Jesus Christ was come in the flesh. And in his first Epistle he cautions those to whom he wrote, against another kind of deceivers, whose doctrine is equally fatal, viz. those who taught that faith without works, denominates a man righteous—Little children, let no man deceive you: He that doth righteousness is righteous—He that committeth sin is of the devil—1 John iii. 7, 8. 

Thus also the apostle Paul, Eph. v. 5, 6.—Ye know that no whore monger, &c. hath any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ, and of God. Let no man deceive you with vain words: for because of these things cometh the wrath of God upon the children of disobedience. 

Do not all these exhortations given to christians, to take care that no man deceive them, imply that they are to examine and judge for themselves; and not to submit implicitly to the dictates of any, even though they pretend to a commission from heaven? Unless it be their right and duty to do thus, nothing can be more impertinent than exhortations of this kind.

ALTHOUGH the apostle Paul were an inspired writer, yet he is far from putting on those dogmatical airs which are now too common amongst those who do not pretend to inspiration. He often condescends to make an appeal to the reason and judgment of those to whom he writes, and invites them to examine what he says. Thus 1 Cor. x. 15. I speak as to wise men; judge ye what I say. And so, Chap. i. ver. 12. Judge in yourselves, is it comely, &c.

IN a controversy betwixt the jewish and gentile converts at Rome, the apostle gave his own sense concerning the point in debate: he exhorted them to mutual love and forbearance: and then, like a reasonable, catholick man, and a friend to the rights of private judgment, he concludes—Let every man be fully perswaded in his own mind. Rom. xvi. 5.

WHEN the jewish converts in Galatia (being still zealously attached to the law of Moses) were for imposing certain opinions and practices upon the Gentiles, this same apostle took the part of the latter; and even enjoined it upon them to vindicate their religious and christian rights against all such encroachments—Stand fast, says he, in the liberty wherewith Christ has made you free: (i. e. assert your freedom from the mosaic law, and all the old jewish institutions) and be not again intangled with any yoke of bondage.  (i. e. stand up in defence of your christian liberty, not only against these your judaizing brethren; but also against all others who shall attempt to exercise any kind of spiritual tyranny over you.) 

So that it is not left to the option of christians whether they will relinquish their natural liberty in religious matters, or not; they are commanded to assert it. God has given us abilities to judge even of ourselves what is right: and requires us to improve them. He forbids us to call any man master upon earth. And as he has forbidden us to submit implicitly to the dictates of any man; so he has also expresly forbid all christians to assume or usurp any authority over their brethren. 

Ye know, says our blessed Saviour, 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 chief among you, let him be your servant, even as the son of man came not to be ministred unto, but to minister.  

How does our Lord upbraid the Scribes and Pharisees, who sat in Moses’s seat, for assuming an unreasonable authority, and affecting more honour and submission than was due to them? The Scribes and Pharisees—love the uppermost rooms at feasts, and the chief seats in the synagogues, and greetings in the markets, and to be called of men, Rabbi, Rabbi. But be not […]​ called Rabbi, for one is your master even Christ; and all ye are brethren.  The first propagators of Christianity carefully observed this prohibition. They were meek, humble and charitable. They claimed no dominion over the faith of Christians, but were content with being helpers of their joy. 2 Cor. i. 24. They preached not themselves to be the Lord or Lords; but Christ Jesus; and themselves [Page 57] the servants of Christians for Jesus sake. 2. Cor. iv. 5. This was the manner in which the holy apostles demeaned themselves in their office. 

But since their day, Ecclesiasticks have been for less humility and more power. The style of servants is below their dignity: And they must be called of men Lords, Reverend and Right Reverend Fathers in God, &c. Their fellow christians and brethren must approach them upon the bended knee: Sovereign princes must think themselves honoured in having the liberty to kiss the toe of an old Monk, who calls himself Christ’s Vicar: And thus it is that the Pope imitates him who was meek and lowly in heart; and who condescended to wash his disciples feet.

I hope it appears from what has been said, that both reason and scripture oppose the claims of those arrogant men who love to lord it over God’s heritage; and had rather have dominion over our faith, than be helpers of our joy: And that it is the duty of christians to assert their right of private judgment in religious matters, in opposition to all that are for usurping authority over them. I promised, in the next place, to consider the principal objections against this doctrine. But I believe I need make no apology for deferring this to another opportunity.

I shall, however, beg leave, from what has been said already, to look upon the point as proved; and so to close with a few reflections suitable to the subject.

IT appears, then, that all who any ways discourage freedom of inquiry and judgment in religious matters, are, so far forth as they are guilty of this, encroachers upon the natural rights of mankind; that they set up their own authority in opposition to that of almighty God; and that they are enemies to truth, and the gospel of Jesus Christ.—They are encroachers upon the natural rights of mankind, because it is the natural right and priviledge of every man to make the best use he can of his own intellectual faculties—

They set up their own authority in opposition to that of almighty God, because God has not only given us liberty to examine and judge for ourselves; but expressly required us to do it—They are enemies to truth, and the gospel of Jesus Christ; because free examination is the way to truth, and the gospel in particular, gains ground the faster, the more its doctrines and evidences are examined.—

While other tyrants enslave the bodies of men, these throw their chains and fetters upon the mind, which (as the Jews said of themselves) was born free; and which ought not to be in bondage to any man: but only to the Father of Spirits. If it be asked who these spiritual invaders are, it may be answered, all in general who set themselves up to judge for their neighbours; All who are for imposing their own opinions upon others: All who any ways distress and afflict such as differ from them in their religious sentiments: All who make use of any other weapons besides those of reason and argument, in order to demolish error, and propagate truth. 

If a man has a right to judge for himself, certainly no other has a right to judge for him: And to attempt it, is to strike at the most valuable interest of a man considered as a reasonable creature.

THOSE that are guilty of this crime in the highest degree, are such as inflict capital punishments upon those that embrace opinions contrary to their own. The heathens sometimes practised this barbarity among themselves before christianity made its appearance in the world. Afterwards they united their force against the doctrine of Christ, as the most dangerous heresy that had ever been heard of: and butchered millions. Scarce had they laid down the practice, when Christians filled with more than pagan cruelty, took it up, and persecuted one another: 

Nor is it quite laid aside to this day in some parts of Christendom. The mother of harlots, who has long made herself drunk with the blood of the martyrs of Jesus, has still her inquisition; and is frequently adding to the number of those whom St. John saw, in his vision, under the altar, while they cried with a loud voice, saying—How long, O Lord, holy and true! dost thou not judge, and avenge our blood on them that dwell on the earth!

IN a somewhat lower degree are they chargeable with the same crime, who punish dissenters and non-subscribers, by fines and imprisonments, and by depriving them of those civil privileges, emoluments and honours, which, as good subjects and friends, to the state, they might justly expect. It is well known in what church this inhuman practice has been carried to a prodigious length: and in which it is not yet wholly laid aside. It is well that, not Jesus Christ, but another Person, is said to be the supreme Head of this church. For it would be absurd to suppose, that He who said his kingdom was not of this world, should allow of any such practice among the members of that body of which He is the Head.

AGAIN: Another practice akin to those mentioned above, and which has an apparent tendency to hinder men from judging for themselves, is that of Creed-making; setting up human tests of orthodoxy, instead of the infallible word of God; and making other terms of christian communion than those explicitly pointed out in the gospel. 

For any man, or any set of men whatever, to do thus, is plainly to arrogate to themselves the right of judging for their neighbours; and to deter people, as far as they are able, from seeing with their own eyes, and judging even of themselves what is right. Indeed this practice is not so criminal as that of persecuting and murthering men for their religious sentiments: for any reasonable man had rather be the object of a thousand anathema’s than have his life, or even his temporal substance taken from him. 

But still, if these faith-maker’s I am speaking of are so compassionate as only to give their brethren to the devil, for not submittting to their doctrines and decrees, even this has some tendency to intimidate them; especially such as are naturally of a weak and pusillanimous make. For when a creed is begun, or eked out with several reverend, ecclesiastical curses; and when it is confidently affirmed, that unless a man believe faithfully every article contained in it, he shall without doubt perish everlastingly; it cannot be supposed, that the generality of people should ever have the courage to hesitate in the least concerning the truth of it, although it may be really an affront to common sense, a medly of nonsense and contradiction. 

Nor are there wanting innumerable instances of persons, who have, in this way, been first frighted out of their senses, and then into the belief of the grossest absurdities; and paying a sacred regard to them under the notion of their being orthodox, soul-saving truths and divine mysteries—such as are not to be examined with reason, but to be believed and adored without it.

IT is indeed pretended that all these different methods of keeping men from exercising their own rational faculties, are entered upon with a very pious and godly design; and with an holy zeal to keep heresies out of the church; to reclaim those that are unsound in the faith; and to preserve the christian verity pure and undefiled. 

But the proud, domineering, unchristian spirit that has been betrayed by these holy murtherers, robbers, and faith-imposers, leaves us but little room to think that they were actuated by a real concern for the interests of christianity, and the salvation of men’s souls. However, to let alone their views and intentions which we have little or nothing to do with, these practices themselves are unjustifiable: they are imperious and tyrannical: and contrary to the spirit and doctrines of the gospel. 

They are an infringement upon those rights of conscience, which ought to be sacred; they have an apparent tendency to prevent all improvements in religious knowledge, and to entail ignorance, error, and superstition upon future generations. What improvements can we suppose would have been made in the several arts and sciences comparable to the present, had the study of them been incumbered with such restraints, and almost insuperable difficulties?

LET us suppose, for example, that some great Monarch a few centuries ago, together with the Philosophers of that age, had interposed with their authority in the sciences: Let us suppose that an oath of supremacy to the King, or Queen, had been required; and devised in such terms as these—That the King or Queen for the time being, is the supreme Head of the society [or church] of Philosophers—Vested with all power to exercise all manner of philosophical discipline: And other philosophical persons have no manner of jurisdiction philosophical, but by and under the King’s or Queen’s most Excellent Majesty; who hath full power and authority to hear and determine all manner of causes philosophical, and to reform and correct all philosophical errors, heresies, enormities and abuses whatsoever, within his, or her realm. 

Let us suppose farther that philosophical creeds and articles of faith had been composed, and authoritatively issued out with certain minatory and damnatory clauses; and that they had been registred among the other laws of the land. Let us suppose farther, that philosophical courts had been erected, where hereticks in philosophy, and all non-subscribers to the philosophy by law established, were to be arraigned, harassed, fined, whipt, hanged or burnt. I say, if such measures as these had been entred upon a few centuries ago, must [we]​ not suppose that they would have been very absurd and injurious?  

Must we not suppose also, that they would have damped the greatest and most enterprizing Genius’s; and so have been a means of keeping the world in ignorance? Would not this have prevented those valuable improvements in natural knowledge, which the world is blest with at present? Had such methods been taken seasonably, might it not have been Heresy still, to think this earth a globe? to deny that the sun revolves about us once every twenty-four hours? or to question the equality of the sun and moon? And might not the orthodox philosophy at this day, have possibly been that concerning the great cow and tortoise, &c? 

In short, we cannot think of supporting and propagating the sciences, by dint of authority, without smiling. And it is equally ridiculous to attempt to propagate religious knowledge and the doctrines of the gospel, by authority. 

And every one that pleases may easily see what attempts of this nature have usually issued in; and what must necessarily be the effect of them, viz. ignorance and hypocrisy. Error, as well as iniquity, may be established by a law. And when it is so, a man must either subscribe to it, contrary to his sentiments; or seriously embrace it for truth: A sad dilemma! when a man is thus forced to be a knave or a fool! 

Mankind in general seem to be quite indolent enough, backward enough to examine into moral and religious subjects, without those unnatural restraints which are put upon them by the setting up of authority in matters of faith. There are indeed some foolish and conceited men who take a pleasure in being singular in their opinions; and who never suppose they think freely enough, till they are run wild and mad; and have rejected every thing that others have believed before. But these instances are not frequent. 

Men are generally too prone to follow the multitude, to embrace implicitly the tenets of their spiritual instructors, their fore-fathers, their good mothers and nurses; and to fall in with the opinions of the rich and powerful, which is the road to wealth and preferment. And there is really much more need of incouraging freedom of thought, and an inquisitive turn of mind, by handsome gratuities; than there is of keeping people in the old beaten track by the terror of penal laws, gibbets, inquisitions, spiritual courts, and carnal curses. 

Whatever is pretended, these compulsive methods were not those by which the truth as it is in Jesus, was at first propagated and defended: neither can they be of any service to the cause of truth and religion at present. 

A pecuniary mulct may impoverish a man in this world; but it cannot make him rich in faith, and an heir of the Kingdom—

The rack may torture his limbs; but it cannot draw out the sting from a guilty conscience.—

A dark and filthy dungeon may throw us into a mortal distemper; but it cannot bring light and health into our minds, and make our souls prosper—

A burning faggot may set our bodies in a light blaze; but it has no tendency to illuminate the understanding. 

To attempt to dragoon men into sound orthodox Christians, is as unnatural and fruitless as to attempt to dragoon them into good poets, physicians or mathematicians. A blow with a club may fracture a man’s skull; but I suppose he will not think and reason the more clearly for that; though he may possibly believe the more orthodoxly, according to the opinions of some. 

And upon this account it must be confessed that those who make use of these methods to propagate their sentiments, act very prudently: for their doctrines are generally such as are much more readily embraced by a man after his brains are knocked out, than while he continues in his senses, and of a sound mind.

I shall conclude with the words of the apostle Paul to Timothy, in which he points out the method of defending and propagating the doctrines of the gospel—The servant of the Lord, says he, must not strive; but be gentle unto all men; apt to teach; patient; in meekness, instructing those that oppose themselves, if God peradventure will give them repentance to the acknowledging of the truth.

_____

SERMON IV. Objections considered.

LUKE XII. 54—57.

And he said also to the people, When ye see a cloud rise out of the west, straightway ye say, There cometh a shower; and so it is.

And when ye see the south wind blow, ye say, There will be heat; and it cometh to pass.

Ye hypocrites, ye can discern the face of the sky, and of the earth: but how is it, that ye do not discern this time?

Yea, and why even of your selves judge ye not what is right?

HAVING, in the preceeding discourse, proved the right and duty of free inquiry and private judgment in matters of religion, by direct and plain arguments both from reason and revelation, there was, perhaps, no occasion for my exercising your patience any further, by entering upon a consideration of the objections that have been raised against this Doctrine. For no objections can signify any thing against a doctrine once proved true in fact: However, since some men may think themselves ill used, unless their arguments are distinctly considered, I shall devote the following hour to examine the principal objections against the [Page 66] of the foregoing discourse, setting them in the strongest point of light I am able. The spiritual tyrants and lordly bigots of the earth have indeed triumphed gloriously, as though they had gained a mighty victory over freedom of thought, their old and mortal enemy; and laid her bleeding and gasping at their feet. But whether these are the triumphs of real heroes, or only the vain gasconades and Te Deums of imaginary conquerors, will, perhaps, be easy to determine, when we come to take a view of their weapons, and to see the manner in which they have employed them.

I shall not have much regard to order and method in proposing the objections now to be considered; but mention them just as they present themselves to my mind. And, in the first place, it may be objected,

1. ‘THAT God himself under the mosaic dispensation, required that idolaters, and dissenters from the established church, should be punished with death.’ From hence it may be argued, ‘That uncontrouled liberty in religious matters ought not to be allowed of; but the true church is obliged in duty to restrain and correct infidels and schismaticks; and all in general that she judges unfound in the faith.’

To this it may be answered,

1 st. THAT we cannot argue from what was lawful under the jewish oeconomy, to what is lawful since that is abolished, and superseded by another so different from it as the christian. There might be, and doubtless were, some peculiar reasons for authorizing and enjoining such a discipline then, which do not take place at present. This might be as peculiar to Judaism as circumcision, or the sacrificing of beasts, &c. And in reality it does not any more follow from the Jews being commanded [Page 67] to extirpate idolaters, that christians may destroy heathens and hereticks, than it does from Abraham’s being commanded to sacrifice his son, that all parents may and ought to sacrifice their children now.

IT is to be remembred, that Judaism was at least as much a political as a religious institution. The Jews had God for their immediate king and lawgiver, both in church and state. Their civil and ecclesiastical polity were blended together; and being derived from the same source, every violation of the law of Moses might be considered and punished as an offence against the state, in a greater or less degree: And idolatry being in these circumstances equivalent to high treason, it is not strange that a capital punishment should be annexed to it. But the case is much altered since the promulgation of the christian religion. Christ’s kingdom is not at all a kingdom of this world. It is wholly a religious institution. The laws, the penalties, the rewards of it, are wholly of a spiritual nature: And men are to be won over to it, and kept in it, only by spiritual and moral means.

BUT 2 dly, If the true church ought to punish such as she looks upon to be erroneous, heretical or schismatical, then a war must immediately commence in Christendom; and continue till all are destroyed, but one party: For each sect thinks itself in the right; and that all the rest are tinctured with heresy: This must certainly be the consequence of this maxim, that the right of using violence and persecution is the prerogative of the true church; which one would think sufficient to convince any reasonable man, that the maxim is false. Besides, from whence comes this doctrine, that true orthodox christians have a right to persecute hereticks and unbelievers? (i. e. to be more wicked and immoral than hereticks and unbelievers?) The scripture, indeed, (and experience very often) teaches us, that those who will live godly in Christ [Page 68] Jesus, must suffer persecution; but not, that they must persecute others.

BUT perhaps it will be objected in the second place,

2. ‘THAT our Lord himself required his apostles to use external force, in order to bring men over to the true faith, if gentler methods failed of success.’ The objection will be taken from the parable of the supper, Luke 14. When the guests that were bidden, refused the invitation, the master of the feast is represented as saying to his servant, ver. 23. Go out into the high ways and hedges, and compel them to come in, that my house may be filled. ‘Now as the servant was commanded to compel the guests to come to the supper, so the apostles were injoined to use external violence, if necessary, in order to bring men over to a belief of the gospel; from whence it follows that men are not left to their freedom in religious matters.’ The

1 st THING I would observe with relation to this objection is, that great caution is necessary in the application of parables and allegories, lest the similitude should be carried farther than was originally intended. Nor is it by any means safe to build such a doctrine, (or rather such a practice) as that of compulsion in religious matters, but upon the most plain and express command.

2 dly, THIS parable, at most, only authorizes the compelling of infidels to embrace the gospel: And so it has nothing to do with the controversies amongst the different sects of christians.

3 dly, ALTHOUGH it should be allowed, that this parable injoined the inspired apostles to compel men, by external violence, to embrace christianity, it will not follow that uninspired men since, men who have no commission immediately from heaven, have a right to do the same.

[Page 69] 4 thly, IT is to be observed, that according to the parable, the persons to be compelled are […]​ the same who had before obstinately rejected the kind invitation given them; but such as had not yet been sent to. For when the master sends out his servant a second time, to compel people to come in, it follows—For I say unto you that those men who were hidden, shall not taste of my supper. So that even according to this parable, those who will not be perswaded by gentle methods, are to be given over, and not to have any farther means used with them. From whence it follows,

5 thly, THAT none at all are to be compelled by external violence: for we cannot suppose that force should be applied first of all; and before other methods prove ineffectual, if at all.

6 thly, EITHER the apostles did not understand this as a command to use violence in propagating christianity, or they neglected to obey it; neither of which can be supposed, had there really been such a command. They never attempted to use force; but declared, on the contrary, that the weapons of their warfare were not carnal, but mighty through God to the pulling down of strong holds, &c. 2 Cor. X. 4.

7 thly, THAT this cannot be the sense of the parable, appears from hence, that it is, in the nature of the thing, impossible to force men really to believe the gospel, and become good christians, though one had more dragoons to employ in this pious work, than Louis the XIVth sent to convert the Hugonots. Faith and repentance are the work of reason and the spirit of God; and cannot be wrought in a man by a cudgel, a sword, or a gallows.

8 thly, WERE this in itself possible, how could twelve unarmed apostles, who were allowed to carry only a staff [Page 70] with them in their journies, convert the whole world by force of arms?

9 thly, AND lastly; After all the flourish that has been made with this passage by Roman-Catholicks, and popish Protestants, the word we render compel, as often signifies a moral, as a physical compulsion. And the subject here spoken of, necessarily determines it to such a signification in this place. It is as if the master of the feast had said to his servant, ‘Since the persons before invited to my supper, [the Jews] refuse to come, go to others, [the Gentile nations] and give them the same invitation: And use the greatest importunity with them; reason with them, exhort and perswade them; use all rational methods to convince them, and bring them in.’

BUT I must proceed to another objection: And perhaps one may be urged in some such manner as this—

3. ‘IF every man is allowed to think and judge for himself, the consequence will be that many will fall into erroneous and hurtful opinions. This doctrine opens a door for heresies to enter into the church: it gives men a liberty to trample upon all our creeds and confessions of faith; to depart from the doctrines of their pious fore-fathers; and to despise their spiritual guides. And what will this issue in, but the overthrow of all religion.’ To this objection I would answer,

1 st. THAT it does not follow from men’s being at liberty to judge for themselves, and to chuse their own religion, that they are at liberty to judge wrong, and to reject the true religion, let it be what it will. If they are obliged to judge and chuse, for themselves at all, they are obliged to judge truly and justly, and to reject only what is wrong. The right of private judgmen [Page 71] does not imply, that it is indifferent whether a man judges truly, or not, any more than a man’s right of disposing of his own property, implies that he may as innocently squander it away in rioting and drunkenness, as pay his debts with it, or appropriate it to charitable uses. As a man has not a right to do what is wrong with his own substance, so neither has he any, to judge wrong with his own understanding. He is under a moral obligation to reject error, and to embrace truth, as far as he is able to detect the former, and to discern the latter.

2 dly, AS the right of private judgment, does not leave men at liberty to judge wrong, and to embrace a false religion; so neither has the exercising that right any tendency to mislead men, as the objection supposes. The tendency of it is directly the contrary way. Free examination, weighing arguments for, and against, with impartiality, is the way to find the truth. Who imagines that free inquiry into philosophical subjects, has any tendency to lead men into a wrong idea of the natural world? No one was ever so infatuated as to assert this. And it is in all respects as improbable, that free enquiry into religious subjects should lead us into wrong notions concerning the moral world. One would think that a man who had received his religious principles upon mature and deliberate consideration, and so had in his own mind rational arguments to support them, could not have the least apprehension of their suffering any thing by being thoroughly scanned and examined to the bottom. Error and imposture fly from the light, like the owl and bat: But truth and honesty, like the noble eagle, face to the sun. The cause of error and superstition may suffer by a critical examination; its security is to lurk in the dark: But the true religion flourishes the more, the more people exercise their right of private judgment. This is apparent: And therefore it is no uncharitableness to suppose, that all who are backward to have their doctrines called in question, and to stand a [Page 72] fair trial at the bar of impartial reason, have at least some secret suspicion in their own minds, that they will not stand the test, and come forth as gold when it is tried, but be found no better than dross. We pay but a bad compliment to our religion, when we cry out that it is in danger, if men are left to the free exercise of their own rational faculties in judging of it. A man that is conscious his cause at court is good, chuses it should be tried by the most severe and critical eye. But he that either knows, or suspects, he has a dirty one, had much rather that people would spare themselves the trouble of examining into its merits, and take his own word for the goodness of it. But

3 dly, As to the lamentable havock which the objection supposes will be made amongst our creeds and formularies, if the doctrine of free inquiry should prevail; this is, doubtless, a very natural consequence: for this would probably prove fatal, at least to many articles contained in them. For it is plain that many of them are stuffed with the most ridiculous jargon, and are as contrary to scripture, as they are to common sense. But this, instead of being an objection against free inquiry, is one of the strongest arguments for it. If these creeds and formularies were true, agreeable to reason and revelation, the more thoroughly they are examined the better; for then their truth would appear: But if they are false, it is still best they should be examined, in order to their being exploded. It is no matter how old, or how new they are. Truth does not die with age, and then revive again, as is fabled of the phaenix: it flourishes in immortal youth. Error may indeed become venerable and gray headed with length of time: but a falshood of a thousand years standing, remains as much a falshood as ever, although it may have been consecrated by the church, and transmitted to posterity in a creed. Whatever truths it may have had to keep it company; and however it may have been preserved amidst the [Page 73] storms that have beat upon the church, it is only like one of Noah’s unclean beasts preserved in the ark, amongst those of a pure, and more useful nature. There is nothing more foolish and superstitious than a veneration for ancient creeds and doctrines, as such; and nothing more unworthy a reasonable creature, than to value principles by their age, as some do their wines. But, indeed, this is as common as it is ridiculous. With many people, "Antiquity! Antiquity! Antiquity!" is the cry: And, ‘Who will be so hardy as to dispute the truth of what was believed a thousand years ago?’ Just as if what was false formerly, were not so still; but might be ripened and refined by age into a doctrine of grace. Most things are, indeed, changed by time. Time makes the child a man: Time makes the ignorant wise: Time often turns a friend into a foe, and a foe into a friend: The fashion of the world passeth away by time: And time shall change the whole face of nature. But truth, like the Father of lights, is without variableness, or shadow of turning.

To proceed,

4 thly, IT is supposed in the last mentioned objection, that freedom of inquiry will naturally bring our spiritual guides into contempt, and weaken their authority. To this I reply, That it cannot possibly be of any disadvantage to the sober and rational part of the clergy; but has a tendency to make them more esteemed. But as to the vain and proud; the ignorant and assuming; the enthusiastic and superstitious; it has doubtless a natural tendency to bring these into contempt: And the sooner the better, that so they may not have so much power to do mischief. These are the persons that are generally the most averse to people’s seeing and judging for themselves: And the reason why they are so, is too apparent to need mentioning. But

[Page 74] 5 thly, AND lastly, Upon supposition that the cause of truth and real religion, might suffer in some respects, by persons exercising their right of private judgment; yet this is no just reason for denying them such a liberty. This right is given them by God and nature, and the gospel of Christ: And no man has a right to deprive another of it, under a notion that he will make an ill use of it, and fall into erroneous opinions. We may as well pick our neighbour’s pocket, for fear he should spend his money in debauchery, as take from him his right of judging for himself, and chusing his religion, for fear he should judge amiss and abuse his liberty.

BUT I must hasten to another objection, which is frequently urged with a great deal of confidence, and very little reason. It is near akin to that last mentioned; and may be put into some such form as this,

4. ‘IF all are left at liberty to chuse their own religion, and to enjoy it unmolested, we shall have innumerable sects springing up amongst us; which tends to confusion, and destroys the peace and unity of the church. It is therefore expedient that the governors of the church should injoin upon all, the belief of certain articles of faith, and the observation of certain modes and rites of worship. Without some common rule of faith, worship and discipline, beyond what the scriptures contain, there can be no sufficient bond of union amongst christians. And so the church must inevitably be crumbled to pieces; whereas there ought to be no schism in that spiritual body.’

WITH relation to this objection I would observe,

1 st. THAT if any rule of faith, worship and discipline, besides that which our Saviour and his apostles have left us, be necessary in order to the peace and good government of the church, then the church had no peace [Page 75] and was not well governed during the apostolic age. For christians had then no common rule of faith, worship and discipline besides that which they received from our Lord himself, or his apostles, who were under the extraordinary influence and direction of his spirit. Which rule is transmitted to us in the writings of the new testament; and is sufficient now, for the regulation of the church, if it was then. That this was sufficient then, is not denied; and therefore it cannot be deficient at present. But

2 dly, IF any farther regulations had been necessary in order to preserve the peace and unity of the church, it is strange that neither our blessed Saviour, who loved the church and gave himself for it, nor the apostles, who liv’d and dy’d in the service of the church, should have taken more care to provide for its peace and prosperity. Can we suppose that they did their work to the halves, and left others to finish and perfect it?

3 dly, WHO gave the governors of the church, any authority in matters of faith, worship and discipline? Do we find one word of it in scripture? No. The church of Christ, as such, has no legislator besides Christ himself, whom the Father has made head over all things to the church. And whatever church that be, whose rulers have any power of legislation, so far forth it is not the church of Christ. For Christ equally forbids all his disciples to assume authority over their brethren; and to submit to any who shall arrogate to themselves any authority in matters of a religious concern.

4 thly, and lastly, As no order of men has any authority to enjoin the belief of any articles of faith; or the use of any modes of worship, not expresly and explicitly pointed out in the scriptures; so neither has the enjoining any such, a tendency to preserve the peace and harmony of the church; but directly the contrary. The [Page 76] confusion and disorder that have hitherto been in the church, have not arisen from christians exercising their own judgment, and worshipping God according to their consciences; (though in a manner somewhat different from others) but from the pride and insolence of those who deny their christian brethren this liberty; and who undertake to prescribe authoritatively to others what they shall believe, and how they shall worship. Were it not for the turbulent, domineering spirit of some Ecclesiasticks, who desire more power than Christ saw sit to intrust them with, there would be but little of that wrangling and discord which have hitherto disturbed the peace of the church. The divisions and contentions that have hitherto happened, and still subsist in the christian church, are all, in a manner, owing to the unchristian temper and conduct of those who could not content themselves with scripture orthodoxy, with the simple and spiritual worship of the Father, enjoined by our Saviour, and with the platform of church discipline contained in the new testament; but must go to coining new articles of faith, new modes and rites of worship, making new canons, and prescribing new rules for the regulation of the church. It is about these comparatively novel inventions, that the governors and fathers of the church, (as some affect to call them) have generally been more warm and zealous, than about an holy and godly life. They have ordinarily given pretty good quarter to the most vicious and debauched of men, provided their own authority was acknowledged; their own peculiar whimsies embraced; and their decent (or rather ridiculous) forms and ceremonies were religiously observed. But the most peaceable, sober and virtuous persons, who would not submit to their tyrannical yoke, have all along been treated with contempt and inhumanity, as being hereticks, scismaticks, &c. And all this, perhaps only for not practising such rites, as have no more relation to christianity than telling beeds, or cracking the fingers; and for not believing such doctrines as have [Page 77] no more to do with the gospel of Jesus Christ, than the idle stories of bell and the dragon, or Tobit and his dog. Here is the true source of religious discord. Had Ecclesiasticks, instead of lording it our God’s heritage, and setting up their own authority in the room of Christ’s, put on the meekness and gentleness of Christ; and set a better example to the flock; had they endeavoured to remove all stumbling blocks out of the way, instead of insisting upon indifferent things as necessary terms of christian communion; had they taught and practised the weightier matters of law, instead of spending their zeal upon trifles; had they taught mutual forbearance and charity, instead of fomenting a furious party spirit, and exciting ignorant bigots to rail at sober peaceable christians; had they done thus, the peace and harmony of the church might have been very well preserved, without creeds and formularies, or an exact uniformity in faith and worship. Our blessed Saviour and his apostles, it is plain, have left matters so that there may be a considerable latitude and difference in the sentiments of good christians, and in the manner of their worship. But His ambassadors, and their successors, it seems, have found out that this is a great defect. Accordingly they undertake to supply it, under the notion of preserving the peace of the church. And this is what has hitherto been, and must continue to be, the cause of angry debates and endless contentions; a means of dividing the church, in stead of uniting it; and of inspiring christians with mutual rage, instead of mutual love and brotherly affection.

IT may be objected, in the fifth place,

5. ‘THAT the doctrine of private judgment is inconsistent with that of a standing ministry in the christian church, appointed by Christ to instruct people in religious matters. An order of men was divinely instituted to do the office of instructors, or teachers in the [Page 78] church: Consequently there must be others whose duty it is to learn of them, and not to pretend to a right of judging for themselves. It is incumbent upon the Laiety to go to their spiritual guides; and to receive their instructions with humility and reverence, without pretending to dispute the truth of what they assert in the name of the Lord.’ This, we know, is the manner in which many express themselves upon this subject. And the positive, dogmatical air with which most of our pulpit-discourses are delivered is a sufficient proof, that these sentiments are adopted by the generality of those that stile themselves the ambassadors of Jesus Christ. But to this objection it may be answered in the first place,

1 st. THAT, allowing there is somewhere in the christian church, a set of Men whose office it is to teach authoritatively, and by divine right, still people must judge for themselves who these men are. Almost all publick teachers of religion pretend a divine right to be so. But they do not all teach the same doctrines. How then shall we know whom to chuse for our spiritual instructor, without examining into, and judging upon, the claims of those who demand our attention, and the direction of our understandings and consciences? But

2 ly. SUPPOSING we have found who these persons are, to whom this authority is given, it does not follow that they are to be implicitly believed in every thing they say, or even in any thing. No man is to be believed implicitly, unless he is infallible: but infallibility is not necessarily connected with a divine right to teach. Although it should be allowed, that kings reign by divine right, in the highest sense pleaded for by the advocates for passive obedience and non-resistence, still it is possible that they may make an ill use of their power; command things expresly forbidden by God, and forbid what God has injoined. In either of these cases, it will be allowed [Page 79] that they have no title to the active obedience of their subjects. So also, he that has a divine right to instruct others in religion, may possibly speak false, either ignorantly or with design: And if he does so, no one will be so extravagant as to say, that he ought to be believed. God has given him a right to teach; but it is only to teach truth; if, therefore, he teaches for doctrines the commandments of men, and lies, for the gospel of Christ, he exceeds his commission; and has no more right to demand our assent, than any other liar, or deceiver who is unconsecrated. So that let us carry our idea of the authority of christian teachers ever so high, yet if we stop short of infallibity, we are in reason obliged to examine all that they say, and either to receive or reject it, as evidence of its truth does, or does not appear. Even the apostles themselves (who were divinely authorized teachers in a much higher and more proper sense than any set of men can pretend to be at this day) never pretended to such a right of dictating to others what they should believe and do, as interfered with the right of private judgment. Christian teachers in after ages are (or at least ought to be) only commentators upon the scriptures: and we cannot suppose their commentaries have greater weight and authority than the text itself.

A man of superior knowledge and integrity may be of great advantage in a christian society, by helping his brethren and neighbours to a right understanding of the scriptures, although he be not infallible, and although nothing he advances is to be received for truth without examination and proof. We have authorized professors and teachers of law, physic, philosophy, &c. who are doubtless helpful to such as devote themselves to the study of these sciences. But who ever imagined that the end of their institution was authoritatively to dictate what is true in their respective provinces, in such a sense as to preclude examination; and to render it unnecessary for their pupils and auditors to inquire into the foundation [Page 80] of what they assert? This is so far from being the case, that ’tis confessed their chief business is to open and enlarge the minds of their scholars; to propose reasons and arguments to their understandings, and to endeavour to make them apprehend their force; and in this way to bring them acquainted with the sciences to which they respectively apply themselves. A mathematician would think his pupil had made but a small proficiency, if he only believed upon authority, all the propositions in Euclid, and other books of the same kind, without seeing what principles they were grounded upon, or being able to demonstrate them himself. And as the business of an instructor is not to inforce certain dogma’s purely by dint of authority; so the business of a learner is not to receive for truth whatever his instructor in any science advances as such; but to exercise his own intellectual powers, and to enter into the reasons and grounds of what is taught, and to receive nothing without evidence. No one imagines that a person’s exercising his own understanding in this manner, is inconsistent with the notion of his having somebody to lead and instruct him in any branch of natural knowledge. And the case is much the same in morals and religion. A man’s being an authorized (if you please, a divinely authorized) instructor in religious matters, is no ways inconsistent with the right of private judgment in others. Indeed if they reject the truth when it is sufficiently proved, they do it at their peril; and that, let it be offered by whom it will. But still all are left at as much liberty to examine and judge for themselves, as if there were no public teachers at all.

I proceed now to the sixth, and last objection I shall have time to consider. The objection I intend may be put into some such form as this—

6. ‘ALTHOUGH men may be at liberty to judge for themselves, and to chuse their own religion, when [Page 81] the civil magistrate does not interpose with his authority; yet when articles of faith have once received a royal sanction; and a particular religion is established by the laws of the land; then certainly we are bound to dismiss all our former scruples of conscience, and to submit to the religion of the state. For the apostle has told us expresly, That the powers that be, are ordained of God, that he that resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God, and shall receive to himself damnation.’

With respect to this objection, I would beg leave to query in the first place, whether christians are bound in conscience to believe and conform to that religion, whatever it be, which is established by law, in the countries where they respectively live? This is a plain question: and they either are, or are not so obliged. There is no medium. If they are not so obliged, but only in case they apprehend the established religion is agreeable to the word and will of God, this supposes a right of private judgment, and so gives up the whole point in debate. But on the other hand, if they are bound in conscience to conform in the manner before expressed, from hence it follows, that he that lives in Scotland is bound in conscience to be a Presbyterian; he that lives in England to be an Episcopalian; he that lives in Italy, France, Spain or Portugal to be a Roman Catholick; he that lives in Constantinople must be a Mahometan; and he that lives in a Heathen country, must conscientiously comply with all the idolatrous rites that are injoined by the civil authority; and so be an Heathen in order to obey the gospel-precept concerning submission to lawful authority. Moreover, upon this supposition, it follows that a traveller who has occasion to pass through all those different countries, must change his religion with his climate. He must be successively a Presbyterian, Episcopalian, Papist, Mussulman, and a Heathen; and then be a good orthodox believer when he comes into Christendom again. [Page 82] These consequences are unavoidable upon supposition that the subject ought universally to embrace the religion of the supreme magistrate. And some men will not be shocked at these consequences; for nothing pleases them better than to change their religion as often as they can with conveniency and profit; oaths and subscriptions are, with them, of no signification; if they swear to their own hurt, it is but to change. They are governed by the fashion in their religion, as much as they are in the cut of their cloaths; they have none but a state conscience; and either rail or smile at those who are so whimsical and superstitious as to pretend to have any other. What they have to do in order to know the true religion, is not to inquire into the nature of things, and the infallible oracles of God, but to search the Codes and Registers and Law-books in the country where they live. However it is to be hoped that some others do not trifle with their Maker in this manner; but think it of some importance to know the will of God; and to obey it conscientiously, whatever may be the religion by law established. Is it not possible for the command of the civil magistrate to interfere and clash with the laws of God? No man will pretend to deny this. Whose authority, then is to be regarded, that of the King, or that of the Monarch of the universe, the King of Kings and Lord of Lords? Will any man say it is not our business as men, and especially as christians, to judge whether the injunctions of the civil magistrate may be complied with consistently with our allegiance and loyalty to the supreme Majesty of heaven and earth? And if they cannot, will any one make it a serious question, whether it is better to obey God or man? But

2 dly. I would humbly inquire how any civil majestrate came by any authority at all in religious matters; and who gave him this authority? Has the supreme magistrate of every nation, as such, a right to make a religion for his subjects? No. For then a heathen magistrate, would [Page 83] have a right to enjoin idolatry and paganism; and to punish all christians that came within his territories, if they would not conform. Does the gospel of Christ give the christian magistrate authority in matters of faith and worship? No. It says not a word about any such thing. But

3 dly. AND lastly here, It is evident beyond all dispute, that the apostle in injoining obedience to the civil magistrate, had no thought of injoining obedience to him in religious matters. For all the supreme magistrates then in the world were Pagan; and idolatry was the religion by law established. And certainly we cannot suppose that the apostles could injoin it as a christian duty to embrace the established religion, when that was directly opposite to Christianity. To have threatned damnation to those who disobeyed in this case, would have been to threaten damnation to themselves, and to denounce an anathema against all the christians in the world, and even against Jesus Christ himself; for these were all dissenters from the established religion; and thousands gloriously suffered martyrdom, for refusing to comply with the religion of the state, and for asserting that right of private judgment which we are now endeavouring to defend.

ACCORDING to St. Paul, the magistrate is ordained of God for a terror to evil doers; and for a praise to them that do well. His office is to preserve the liberties and natural rights of his subjects, one of the most important of which rights is that of private judgment, and an unmolested enjoyment of a man’s own religion, let it be what it will, provided he is a peaceable subject, and a good member of society. These and such like are the ends for which, according to scripture, the magistrate is ordained of God, and not to make a religion for his subjects. This would be to invade, and incroach upon, those natural rights of his subjects, which [Page 84] it is his business to preserve inviolable. As the Jews said occasionally to Pilate, We have no king but Caesar; so christians, as such, may say, We have no king but Jesus Christ: And they are traitors to him their lawful sovereign if they swear allegiance to any other as the lord of their faith, and the director of their religious conduct. And indeed the very mention of articles of faith established by law, is as great a solecism as mathematicks established by law; and deserves a worse name than I chuse to give in this place.

THUS I have endeavoured with all possible brevity and plainness to answer the most material objections against freedom of thought, and the rights of conscience in religious concerns. I have aimed at provoking no sect of christians whatever; nor at pleasing any; but have spoken my sentiments, such as they are, with the honest simplicity that I think becomes a christian: And with such freedom as I apprehend is agreable to the cause I have been attempting to defend; the cause of religious liberty; that liberty which God and the gospel of his Son have granted to us; that liberty, for the sake of which our pious fore-fathers forsook their native land, where they had a goodly heritage, and sought a safe retreat in this western world, a wilderness inhabited by savage beasts and more savage men; though both were less savage than some of those episcopal blood-thirsty tyrants from whose rage they fled. This is a cause of no less importance even to the present happiness of human society, than that of civil liberty, in opposition to arbitrary power. And here I beg leave to use the words of a truly catholic prelate of the church of England—‘To liberty and property, says he, I add the free exercise of religion as necessary to the happiness of a governed society: because as there is no tyranny so odious to God, as tyranny over the conscience; so is there no slavery so uneasy and ignominious, as a forced religion, or a worship imposed upon—men by the fear or application [Page 85] of outward inconveniencies: besides that nothing promotes the flourishing condition of a nation more than the indulgence of this freedom to all whose principles are not manifestly inconsistent with the publick safety.’ Thus the bishop of Winchester, the noted scourge of civil and ecclesiastical tyranny.

I shall now close with a few words by way of application. And

1 st LET us all stand fast in the liberty wherewith Christ has made us free; and not suffer ourselves to be intangled with any yoke of bondage. If we have submitted to the yoke hitherto, and ingloriously subjected ourselves to any human impositions in religious matters; it is better to throw off the yoke even now, than to let it gall us all our life-time: It is not yet too late to assert our liberty, and free ourselves from an ignominous slavery to the dictates of men.

LET us take pains to find out the truth, and after we are setled in our judgment concerning any religious tenet or practice, adhere to it with constancy of mind, till convinced of our error in a rational way. Let us despise the frowns and censures of those vain conceited men who set themselves up for the oracles of truth and the standard of orthodoxy; and then call their neighbours hard names—We have not only a right to think for ourselves in matters of religion, but to act for ourselves also. Nor has any man whatever, whether of a civil or sacred Character, any authority to controul us, unless it be by the gentle methods of argument and perswasion. To Christ alone, the supreme and only head of the christian church, and the final judge of mankind; to him alone we are accountable for not believing his doctrines, and obeying his commandments, as such. And whosoever attempts to restrain or controul us, takes it upon him to rule another [Page 86] man’s servant, forgetting that he also is a man under authority; and must hereafter stand or fall by a sentence from the same mouth with ourselves.

DID I say, we have a right to judge and act for ourselves? I now add—it is our indispensible duty to do it. This is a right which we cannot relinquish, or neglect to exercise, if we would, without being highly culpable; for it is absolutely unalienable in its own nature. We may dispose of our temporal substance if we please; but God and nature and the gospel of Christ injoin it upon us a duty to maintain the right of private judgment, and to worship God according to our consciences, as much as they injoin us to give an alms to the poor, to love God and our neighbour, and practise universal righteousness: and we may as well talk of giving up our right to the latter, as the former. They are all duties, and not rights simply; duties equally founded in the reason of things; duties equally commanded by the same God; duties equally injoined by the same Lord; duties equally required in the same gospel. And a neglect of the duty of private judgment may possibly be attended with worse consequences to ourselves and others than the neglect of almost any other. For he that does not examine for himself what is true and right, acts intirely in the dark, and so may run into the most irregular and destructive practices that can be conceived of, just as his weak or wicked guides are pleased to prompt him. He is fit only for a tool to the devil and his emissaries: and may flatter himself that he is doing God good service, while he is imbrueing his hands in the blood of the innocent, and persecuting the church of Christ.

But

2 ly. AND to conclude, while we are asserting our own liberty and christian rights, let us be consistent and uniform; and not attempt to incroach upon the rights of [Page 87] others. They have the same right to judge for themselves and to chuse their own religion, with ourselves. And nothing is more incongruous than for an advocate for liberty, to tyrannize over his neighbours. We have all liberty to think and act for ourselves in things of a religious concern; and we ought to be content with that, without desiring a liberty to oppress and grieve others. However we have some ignorant railing zealots amongst us, fired with a furious party spirit, who are not satisfyed that they enjoy their own liberty, but mourn that their neighbours enjoy the same, and that they have it not in their power to afflict them for their religious sentiments. They groan under the righteous act of toleration, as much as our fathers groaned under the unrighteous one of uniformity. However, through mercy, we have but a few men of this stamp amongst us; and those are such ignorant and despicable creatures, that they are more proper objects of pity, than of anger. My brethren, God forbid that we should discover any thing of this same unchristian temper; or begrutch others the enjoyment of those rights which we ourselves esteem so dear, sacred and valuable. Let us, as much as in us lies, live peaceably with all men; but suffer none to lord it over our consciences. Let us avoid a contracted, censorious spirit in ourselves, and pity and despise it in others. Let us be courteous and friendly to all men of what denomination soever they be; and how much soever their religious principles may differ from our own. If we think them erroneous, let us not rail at them, but reason with them in the spirit of meekness. Let us use no methods but those of sober argument and kind perswasion, in order to bring men over to a belief and practice of the truth as it is in Jesus: and let us scorn those who are for using any other methods with us. God grant that how different soever our sentiments are, we may be united in love and charity; and that christians of all perswasions, and [Page 88] all churches, may live and behave in such a manner, as to meet at last above: and join the general assembly and church of the first-born which are written in heaven. Amen.

(18c: 1740s; 1749, N05074 / 6. SERMON III. The–7. SERMON IV. Objections,56¶)