Part 6

One of these principles, whose claim to admission is seldom unequivocally denied in theory, though too often practically disallowed, is Christian Liberty,--the indefeasible right of every man to freedom from all human control in spiritual concerns. This comprehends the right of entire privacy of conscience, of exemption from all inquiry and interference in spiritual matters, of examining, interpreting, comparing and understanding the sacred records under a responsibility to none but God; and of forming, changing, and announcing opinions without hinderance or molestation. We are aware that this principle is seldom carried out to its utmost length, even in speculation; and as seldom is it absolutely rejected. But, as we have said with respect to another principle, and as we would say of all, let it be put to the test of reason and experience; and if sound, let it be fully admitted with all its consequences; if unsound, let it be discarded. The process of attestation which we have instituted obliges us to receive it unhesitatingly, and to act on it unreservedly.

The primary spiritual relation of men is to God; their highest subordinate relation is to each other. Their conduct in the subordinate relation is to be regulated by a regard to the primary; but the primary relation is not to be invaded by any influences from below. The relations between man and man are established by God and guided by Him to the fulfilment of purposes known only to Him, except in so far as it has pleased Him to reveal them. The relation of the mind of man to its Maker is, on the contrary, so intimate as to admit of no intervention; and of a nature which cannot be affected by any influence whatever. This relation may be unperceived; (though there is perhaps no instance on record of its being so) it may be heedlessly forgotten; it may be, as alas! it too often is, obscured by the shades of vice or the influences of spiritual tyranny; but it can never be usurped or changed; and the time must come when this indissoluble relation shall be recognized and claimed as comprehending all the manifold privileges of existence. The course of nature seems designed to lead men to its perception, and the grand object of revelation is to blazon it forth; while every intimation of its nature describes it as sacred from all invasion. Every manifestation of the Divine will must, therefore, be made to each individual mind as exclusively as if no other mind existed. The religion of nature, though adopted in various countries, and amidst its different aspects among different nations, embraced by myriads under every form, is yet a bond between God and every individual man as complete as if that man alone had been created. In like manner the Gospel is a covenant between God and the human race only as it is a covenant between God and every individual of that race who shall embrace it: and there can be two parties only to the transaction,--he who offers the conditions, and he who accepts or rejects them. To no one has the Author of this covenant deputed the power of imposing the conditions, or of judging how far they have been fulfilled, or of passing; sentence accordingly. To none could he depute this power without making him, in fact, the only person with whom the inferior party has to do, _i. e._ the God of the inferior party. It may be objected that we argue upon a metaphor; but, let the Gospel be regarded under every possible aspect, the same truth will still be demonstrable,--that between the Creator and the created no created power can, without the Divine concurrence, interfere; and that in the spiritual creation, the powers requisite for interference being above those of humanity, such concurrence never can have been, and never can be granted.

If the nature of Christian obedience had been different,--if it had been ritual instead of spiritual, it may be conceived possible that God might have committed to man the power of judging and sentencing; but the things of the heart, the desires, the struggles with temptation, the silent conflicts, the unapparent defeats and victories of conscience, are known and can be known by none but God. Through the medium of confession alone can one man gain any insight into the spiritual state of another; and no medium can be more deceptive. It is perhaps impossible for the most conscientious mind to communicate to the most congenial fellow-mind a faithful detail of the thoughts, wishes, hopes, and fears of any single hour; and if it were possible, the fellow-mind would still be incapable of forming an estimate of the spiritual state, or of directing the necessary discipline; because the apparent results of operations which he does not understand are all the materials that he has to judge from; whereas the object of discipline is to rectify the operations themselves. If a man confesses to his bosom friend that his devotional feelings have been for some time past sensibly weakening; that he looks on the beautiful world of nature with apathy, and thinks on the perpetual presence of God without awe or delight; that his spirit is dead in the public offices of devotion, and roving when it ought to be fixed in prayer; his friend may mourn with him over so painful an experience, and suggest, more or less wisely, methods of arousing the sleeping faculties, and kindling anew the failing fires of devotion. But he does this as an adviser, and not as a judge; for the power of judging is not given to him. He knows not whether the origin of the distemper be bodily or mental: he knows nothing of the thousand influences, from within and from without, which have of late modified the delicate processes of the intellect and the soul. He cannot therefore know what restorative influences are most needed; whether mute converse with nature or busy intercourse with men; whether the terrifying or the alluring appeals of the Gospel; whether the awful claims of the Divine holiness, or the mild persuasions of the Divine compassion; whether any or all of these, or of the manifold influences besides which are perpetually dispensed by Him who knoweth our frame, but have never been confided to the empirical disposal of man.

If, as is evidently the case, all human judgment of sin and holiness is comparative instead of positive, and therefore ever changing as the means of comparison become more ample and the faculty stronger, it is manifestly impossible for any one mind to form an exact estimate of the qualities of another by any but its own imperfect and varying measure: and since to God alone are the principles of morals present in their complete development, to Him alone can their infallible application belong. The agency of men on each other is appointed accordingly. They may confess their sins one to another for their mutual relief and guidance; but such confession must be strictly voluntary, and carefully disconnected with all inclination towards spiritual usurpation on the one hand and subservience on the other.

There is no subject on which the sacred writers are more explicit than this, and none on which their practice exhibited a more eloquent commentary. Hear what the Apostle of the Gentiles asserts in defence of the spiritual liberty of the least enlightened members of the Church, who were, as he believed, in error respecting some modes of practice which were very important at that time. 'Him that is weak in the faith, receive ye; but not for doubtful disputings. One believeth that he may eat all things; but another who is weak eateth herbs only. Let not him that eateth despise him that eateth not; and let not him that eateth not judge him that eateth; for God hath received him. Who art thou that judgest the servant of another? To his own master he standeth or falleth. But he shall be established, for God is able to establish him. It is written, 'As I live, saith the Lord, every knee shall bow to me, and every tongue shall confess to God.' So then every one of us shall give account of himself to God. Let us not therefore judge one another any more.' (Romans xiv.) This was the rule which the Apostle observed in all his transactions with the infant churches which referred their spiritual concerns to him, as their father and guardian in the faith. He denounced guilt, expounded the faith, guarded against error, and used every method of argument, persuasion, and entreaty, with which his head and heart could furnish him to establish them in righteousness; he set before them every motive of hope and fear, and faithfully declared the whole counsel of God, as bound by his office, and privileged by his unequalled qualifications; but he throughout abstained from intermeddling with any man's conscience, not only by direct interference, but by indirect influence. Let us see how scrupulous was his regard to liberty of conscience. 'I know and am persuaded by the Lord Jesus that there is nothing unclean of itself: but to him that esteemeth anything to be unclean, to him it is unclean. All things indeed are pure; but it is evil for that man who eateth with offence. It is good neither to eat flesh, nor to drink wine, nor anything by which thy brother stumbleth, or is offended, or is made weak. Hast thou faith? Have it to thyself before God.' (Romans xiv.) A yet more eminent example is on record, whose conduct bears a reference to a case of still more awful responsibility than that instanced by the Apostle. 'If any man hear my words and believe not, I judge him not: for I came not to judge the world, but to save the world. He that rejecteth me, and receiveth not my words, hath one that judgeth him: the word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day. For I have not spoken of myself; but the Father who sent me, he gave me a commandment what I should say and what I should speak. (John xii. 47-49.) How, in the face of these declarations, can men impeach the faith and pronounce sentence on the practice of their brethren, assuming their own judgments as the standard of truth, and their own conceptions as the measure of holiness? How, in the face of these declarations, can ministers of the Gospel have ever grasped, as a right, the power which Christ himself disclaimed; not leaving judgment till the last day, but delivering over to reproach and death those who were 'weak in the faith,' or perplexed with 'doubtful disputations'? How, in the face of these declarations, can priests of any church have denied that to his own master every man stands or falls, and have made close inquisition into the secrets of the soul, pretending to understand its errors, and presumptuously undertaking to cleanse its secret faults by methods which no voice from above has sanctioned as lawful, and no sign from on high has shown to be efficacious? Could such inquisitors and such priests (and they are to be found in every Church) have mingled with the followers of Jesus, they would have cried out for fire from heaven on the Samaritans, notwithstanding every prohibition; they would have questioned the sinful Mary, not satisfied with her loving much, till they had ascertained how much; they would have pronounced the young lawyer very far from the kingdom of God unless he could have made a fuller profession of faith; and, meeting the adulteress in the outer courts of the temple as she left the mild presence of Jesus, would have prescribed her penance with a rigor well pleasing to the accusers, who were themselves too modest to cast the first stone. Since Jesus, who knew what was in the hearts of those around him, forbore to condemn, much more ought they to forbear who have no such knowledge. If he awarded no punishment to those who rejected the Gospel he understood so well, much less should they who are themselves but learners inflict pain of body or mind on their fellow-disciples who understand differently, or the unbelievers who cannot understand at all. If he who spake as his Father commanded him left it to the Father to enforce these commands, it ill becomes those on whom the Spirit has not descended to assume an authority which inspiration itself could not sanction. It becomes them to learn what they themselves are, before they judge how little their brethren are what they ought to be. It becomes them to ascertain their own superiority over the Apostles, before they claim an authority with which no Apostle ever believed himself to be invested; and which, if he had so imagined, he would have prayed for permission to resign. Far less perilous, far less burdensome would be a commission from on high to guide the seasons, to dispense showers and sunshine, and regulate the produce of the fields, than to control the spiritual movements, and administer the fertilizing influences under which the fruits of holiness are to spring up unto everlasting life.

That any such commission was ever given, is as true in the one case as in the other; and the belief of any individual that to himself it was ever confided, is a proof of unsoundness in heart or brain. To any man it is honor enough, as it was to Paul and Apollos, to plant and to water. To God alone it belongs to give and to measure the increase.

We therefore disapprove of the practice of confession as adopted by Catholics, for one reason among many, that it infringes liberty of conscience, by making man practically accountable to man, and countenancing an assumption of that power to judge and punish which belongs to God alone. The punishments of canonical penances are, it is true, of human institution; but they are awarded to spiritual guilt, of which no one has a right to take cognizance but God. We therefore deny the right of any man to impose penances, or, in consequence, to issue indulgences; and we hold that wherever such a right is claimed, the prerogative of God is invaded and the cause of his Gospel injured.

Christian liberty secures to every man the right, not only of reading the sacred records for himself, but of interpreting them for himself; of ascertaining by his own unbiased judgment what they teach, and of holding the opinions thus formed without being accountable to any man or to any body of men. In advocating the free perusal of the Scriptures and the formation of individual opinions from them, we shall be careful to avoid any bias from the popular and false impression, that the faithful pastors of the Catholic Church would prohibit their flocks from reading the Bible: and we shall enter on no discussion respecting the comparative fidelity of Catholic and Protestant English translations of the Scriptures. On the latter point, much must be said, if anything; so much, that no room would be left us for matters of greater importance. Important as it is that the sacred books should be faithfully rendered, that it should be shown how long-prevalent errors, supposed to be countenanced by them, are not so countenanced; important as it is, for instance, to decide whether the sacred teacher said 'Repent,' or 'Do penance,' it is yet more important to develop the principles to which all modes of expression are subservient: to attend to the spirit rather than the letter, to establish truths and explode errors to the perception of which every intellect is adequate, than to debate matters to which, though of inferior moment, peculiar qualifications are requisite.

We willingly accept the following testimony of Fenelon to the fact of the unrestricted use of the sacred writings in the early times of Christianity; though we dissent from the concluding remark. The passage is translated from a letter from Fenelon to the Bishop of Arras. (_Oeuvres Spirituels de Fenelon_, 8vo. tom. 4, p. 241.) 'I think that much trouble has been taken in our times very unnecessarily, to prove what is incontestable, than in the first ages of the Church the laity read the Holy Scriptures. It is clear as daylight, that all people read the Bible and service in their native languages; that as a part of good education, children were made to read them; that in their sermons, the ministers of the Church regularly explained to their flocks whole books of the sacred volume; that the sacred text of the Scriptures was very familiar to the people; that the clergy exhorted the people to read them; that the clergy blamed the people for not reading them, and considered the neglect of the perusal of them as a source of heresy and immorality. But in all this the Church used a wise economy; adapting the general practice to the circumstances and wants of individuals. It did not, however, think that a person could not be a Christian, or not be well instructed in his religion, without perusing the sacred writings. Whole countries of barbarians, innumerable multitudes of the faithful were rich (to use the words of St. Paul) in words and science, though they had not read the sacred writings. To listen to the pastors of the Church who explain the Scriptures to the faithful and distribute among them such parts as are suited to their wants, is to read the Scriptures.'

This last proposition is in perfect accordance with the creed which declares that 'to the holy Mother Church it belongs to judge of the true sense and interpretation of the Holy Scriptures,' but inconsistent with the principle held by us, that no man has the power of judging for another or the right to prescribe the opinions of another. 'What then is to be done,' it is asked, 'with those who cannot read for themselves?' They must take what they can obtain from their pastors, or from any other medium of communication. If the medium be as faithful as human fallibility allows, much truth may be learned and the means of holiness may be abundantly afforded: but yet the learner is precluded by his ignorance from the full enjoyment of his Christian liberty; and to hang on the lips of his instructor is far, very far from being the same thing as reading the Scriptures for himself.

Such a 'wise economy' as Fenelon speaks of seems to us but a fleshly wisdom, a narrow policy originated by men, discountenanced by God, and available to perpetuate, not the Gospel itself, but the corruptions which were early mixed with it, and which will not stand the test of examination. Who was to decide what 'parts were suited to their wants?' Who knoweth the things of a man, but the spirit of a man which is in him? Who gave the power of prohibition to read the Scriptures over such as 'were not disposed to read them to their advantage?' Who was to judge of the disposition; who could discern the tendency of inquiry; who could estimate the advantage and disadvantage of the results? How dared the Church to 'withhold from the laity the perusal of the Bible without permission of their pastors,' from the assumption that it was 'unsafe to allow the people at large to read the sacred text?' How unsafe? For the Gospel itself? The Divine care would have provided a preventive or a remedy, if the danger had been real. For the honor of God? He would have made provision for its vindication. For the spiritual welfare of the people? It could not have been injured by the free use of the means ordained to perfect it: nor was it ever the province of pastors to promote that welfare by other means than the Gospel authorizes. And where is the patent for the monopoly of the Scriptures to be found? But it is alleged that there are many passages in the sacred volume which, being hard to be understood, are wrested by the unstable and the ignorant to the destruction of the purity of their faith. True. But the case was the same in the days of the Apostles; and did Peter ever desire that Paul's writings should therefore be kept back from the unlearned and unstable? Or did he enjoin an explanation of them from the wise, to which the foolish should be required to assent? No; he recommended caution in giving heed to other men's errors, and growth in the knowledge of Christ Jesus; both which must be better promoted by independent thought and judgment than by subservience to any mind, however pure and enlightened. Christ himself, though he knew what was in man, never required this subservience from any one of his followers. He gave his instructions in as many different forms as we have them in now: in discourses, in parables, in familiar dialogue, and by actions; and invariably he left to the hearers the application of the principles thus conveyed, except when pressed by his immediate followers for an interpretation. He took no pains to preserve his Gospel from 'the rash criticisms of the vulgar,' as the piety of Fenelon erroneously advises. He did not act upon the belief that previous instruction was necessary to the comprehension of the word of life, or that 'the people should be full of the spirit of the Gospel before they are entrusted with the letter.' The letter of the Gospel now is the same as the letter of the Gospel then; the spirit now, as then, is only to be got at through the letter; and the letter now, as then, is only valuable as it communicates the spirit. Christ did not think that 'it should only be permitted to the simple, the docile, and the humble; to those who wish to nourish themselves with its divine truths in silence; and withheld from those who merely seek to satisfy their curiosity, to dispute, to dogmatize, to criticize.' This doctrine of Fenelon is, we are told, and ever has been, the doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church. Were the disciples to whom Christ spoke of the bread of life and who therefore forsook him, 'docile and humble?' Yet what saying was more 'hard to be understood?' When he declared the nature of his Gospel, and the authority under which he proposed it, were the Pharisees in the temple 'simple and docile?' Was there no disposition 'to dispute, to dogmatize, to criticize' among the elders, the scribes, the Sadducees whom he referred to his works, assured of the temporary nature of the Jewish covenant, and besought to listen to the truth which should make them free? The glad tidings of salvation were then preached, as they ought to be now, to the poor and ignorant without fear that what is truly the Gospel can be dangerously misapprehended, and without intimation that the faith needs the interpretation of fallible understandings, or the guardianship of human wisdom.

If we believed (which we do not) that error in matters of faith could of itself endanger salvation,--_i. e._ exclude from the happiness of a future state,--we should be convinced that those were much more liable to error who adopted the faith after it had passed through a fallible mind, than those who received it from Christ himself, speaking directly, as in fact he does, in the faithful records which the Bible presents. And the more feeble and ignorant the recipient mind, the more liable will it be to admit the errors of others, as well as to originate some of its own. While, if referred to the sacred volume itself for his faith, a man is in danger of entertaining no errors but his own. However imperfect his mental vision may be, he is thus more likely to behold the object in its true form and colors, than by the interposition of a faulty medium. If it be objected that the medium, so far from being faulty, corrects the imperfections of the natural faculty, we ask for the test of its possessing this quality, and for the proof that it was ever conferred.