Private Judgement.

It is our present design to treat of the right, the necessity, and the duty of each person freely to exercise his reason, conscience, and will — especially in matters pertaining to his soul. Every man has the right to think for himself and express or aver his thoughts on political, moral, and spiritual matters — without being subject to any civil or ecclesiastical penalty or inconvenience on that account. Conversely, no man is entitled to force his ideas upon others and demand that they subscribe thereto, still less to propagate them to the disturbing of the public peace. This is a truth which needs proclaiming and insisting upon today, not only because of the widespread apathy towards taking a firm stand for the same, but because the dearly bought liberties, which have, for so many years, been enjoyed by those living in the English-speaking world, are now in danger of being filched from them.

On the one hand, is the steady growth of what is termed, "Totalitarianism," under which the minds and bodies of its subjects are little more than robots. And on the other hand is the rapidly increasing power and arrogance of Rome, in which the souls of its members are the slaves of a rigid and merciless tyranny.

In writing upon the freedom of the individual, it is our design to shun as far as possible anything which savors of party politics; yet, since the scope of our present theme requires us to say at least a few words on the right of civil liberty, we cannot entirely avoid that which pertains to human governments. But instead of airing our personal views, we shall treat only of those broad and general principles which are applicable to all nations and all ages, and restrict ourselves very largely to what the Holy Scriptures teach thereon.

God has not left His people, or even men at large, without definite instruction concerning their civil and spiritual duties and privileges; and it behooves each of us to be informed and regulated thereby. Broadly speaking, the purpose of the State is to promote the welfare of the commonwealth, and to protect each individual in the enjoyment of his temporal rights; but it is entirely outside its province, to prescribe the religion of its subjects. Rulers, be they civil or ecclesiastical, have only a delegated power, and are the agents and servants of the community, who entrust to them so much power as is necessary to the discharge of their office and duty. No human government is perfect, and it may appear to us that a particular form of government is acting unwisely in its legislation and arbitrarily in its administration.

The question therefore arises, "How should a Christian citizen act under a particularly offensive government?"

First, the Word of God requires from him full submission and obedience to all those of its enactments which are not in themselves sinful: and that not because the government is one of his choice or because its policy meets with his approval, but because God Himself has ordered, "Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God…Whoever therefore resists the power, resists the ordinance of God" (Rom 13:1-2). Whatever be the particular form of government — it is of divine ordering, and His providence has placed us under it. This is also evident from both the teaching and personal example of Christ, who bids us, "Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's" (Mat 22:21).

But second, if the government should demand of me compliance with anything which is contrary to the revealed will of God, then it is my bounden duty to refuse obedience; yet in such a case, God requires me to submit meekly to any penalty imposed upon me for my declining to comply.

That a child of God must refuse to do the bidding of a government when it enjoins something contrary to the divine will is clear from the cases of the three Hebrews (Dan 3:18), and of Daniel in Babylon (verses 10-13), who firmly declined to conform unto the king's idolatrous demands. It is equally evident from the case of the apostles, who, when they were commanded by the authorities "not to speak at all nor teach in the name of Jesus," answered, "Whether it be right in the sight of God to hearken unto you more than unto God — you judge" (Act 4:18-19, and compare 5:29). Yet note well that, while insisting upon their spiritual rights, in neither case did any of them defend themselves or their cause by resorting to violence against the chief magistrate.

Let it be steadily borne in mind that an incompetent or an unjust government is better than none, for the only other alternative is anarchy and a reign of terror, as history clearly and tragically testifies — witness the horrors perpetrated in Paris, when its streets literally ran with blood at the great French Revolution; and the awful carnage and sufferings which more recently obtained in Russia when the regime of the Czars was overthrown. "For it is better, if the will of God be so, that you suffer for well doing, than for evil doing" (1 Peter 3:17).

A further question needs considering at this point: "Who is to be the judge of which decrees of a government are sinful?" Obviously, in the last resort — it is the citizen himself. That is the scriptural and Protestant doctrine of the right of private judgment: to test what the law of the land requires — by the divine Law. God's authoritative Word forbids me doing anything which He has prohibited, or which is morally wrong. If any form of government insists upon being the absolute judge of its own case — then there is an end of personal independence and freedom. Every rational being lies under moral obligations to God — obligations which are immediate and inevitable. No government, and no human creature, can answer for him before God in a case of conscience, or come between him and his guilt; and therefore, it is the most monstrous injustice and iniquity that any power, except the divine, should dictate to the conscience. It may be said that this is a dangerous doctrine that it is likely to lead to disorder and insurrection. Not so where the two parts of it are maintained: the right to refuse only when something is demanded which God's Word forbids, and the duty of meekly submitting to the penalty thereof — the latter will check a misuse of the former.

Under no conceivable circumstances, should any man relinquish the right to think and decide for himself. His reason, will, and conscience are divine gifts, and God holds him responsible for the right use of them, and will condemn him if he buries his talents in the earth. But as it is with so many other of His favors, this one is not valued at its true worth, and soon may not be prized at all — unless it is entirely removed and there be a return to the bondage of the "dark ages."

A considerable majority of the present generation are largely, if not wholly, unaware — so ignorant are they of history — that for centuries, even in Britain, civil liberty and the right of private judgment upon spiritual things were denied the masses by both State and Church, politicians and prelates alike lording it over the people. Nor was their tyrannical dominion easily or quickly broken: only after much suffering and a protracted fight, was full freedom secured. Alas, that such a dearly bought and hard-won privilege should now be regarded so lightly and be in real danger of being lost again. Nearly two hundred years ago, Augustus Toplady (1740-1778) pointed out, "Despotism has ever proved an insatiable gulf. Throw ever so much into it, it would still yearn for more." Significantly did he add, "Were liberty to perish from any part of the English-speaking world, the whole would soon be deluged by the black sea of arbitrary power."

But we must now turn to that part of our subject which more especially concerns the child of God and his spiritual interests. There were three basic truths which the battle of the Reformation recovered for Christendom:

the sufficiency and supremacy of the Scriptures,

the right of private judgment, and

justification by faith without the deeds of the Law.

Each of those was flatly denied by the Papacy, which taught, and still insists, that human "traditions" are of equal authority with God's Word, that the Romish church alone is qualified to explain the Bible or interpret its contents, and that human merits are necessary in order to our acceptance with God. Having treated at some length, in recent articles, with the first, we are now considering the second.

Rightly did Martin Luther (1483-1546) affirm that man is responsible to none but God for his religious views and beliefs, that no earthly power has any right to interfere in the sacred concerns of the soul — to be lord of his conscience, or to have dominion over his faith. But while the Reformers contended vigorously for the right and privilege of each individual to read the Scriptures for himself, and, under the illumination and guidance of the Holy Spirit, to form his own opinions of what they teach — yet considerable qualification was made in the application and outworking of that principle in actual practice. So it was too in the century that followed, commonly termed "the Puritan period."

The early Reformers and many of the Puritans were for one uniform mode of worship and one form of temporal government, with which all must comply outwardly, whatever their individual convictions and sentiments. However desirable such a common regime might appear, to demand subjection thereunto was not only contrary to the very essence and spirit of Christianity, but also at direct variance with the right of private judgment. No man should ever be compelled — either by reward or punishment — to be a member of any Christian society, or to continue in or of it any longer than he considers it is his duty to do so. Any attempt to enforce uniformity is an attack upon the right of private judgment, and is to invade the office of Christ, who alone is the Head of His people. But alas, how few are fit to be entrusted with any measure of authority.

When Anglicanism was supreme, at the close of the sixteenth century, anyone who failed to attend the parish church was subject to a fine! In the next century, when the Presbyterians held the reins, they proved to be equally intolerant to those who differed from them.

"Each party agreed too well in asserting the necessity for uniformity in public worship, and of using the sword of the magistrate for the support and defense of their principles, of which both made an ill use whenever they could grasp the power into their own hands. The standard of uniformity according to the Bishops was the Queen's supremacy and the laws of the land; according to the Puritans, the decrees of provincial and national synods, allowed and enforced by the civil magistrate; but neither party was for admitting that liberty of conscience, which is every man's right, so far as is consistent with the peace of the civil government" — Daniel Niel (1678-1743), History of the Puritans, volume 2 (page 92).

Well did that faithful and impartial historian point out, "Christ is the sole lawgiver of His Church, and has appointed all things necessary to be observed in it to the end of the world; therefore, when He has indulged a liberty to His followers, it is as much their duty to maintain it, as to observe any other of His precepts."

Differences of opinion, especially in "church government," soon led to further divisions and the formation of parties and sects; and in many instances, Protestants were as dictatorial and tyrannical as the Papists had been, demanding unqualified submission to their articles of faith and forms of worship. Only after bitter persecution and much hardship, did real religious liberty gradually emerge, and never yet has it fully and universally obtained in Protestantism.

No doubt it would be interesting to many of our readers were we to trace the gradual emergence of religious freedom from bondage in Germany, Switzerland, Holland, Britain, and the U.S.A., and the various and often unexpected set-backs experienced; but even a bare outline of its history would be too lengthy a digression. Nor is it hardly necessary. Human nature is the same in all lands, and in all ages, and those possessing a workable knowledge of the same in themselves and their fellows, can easily visualize with their minds the nature of those events.

Most of us, if we are honest, must acknowledge that there is quite a bit of the pontiff in us, and therefore, we should not be surprised to learn that there have been many popish men in most sections of Christendom, and that a spirit of intolerance and uncharitableness has often marred the characters of real Christians. It has been comparatively rare for those of prominence to insist that "Every species of positive penalty for differing modes of faith and worship is at once anti-Christian, and impolitic, irrational, and unjust. While any religious denomination of men deport themselves as dutiful subjects to the State, and as harmless members of the community, they are entitled to civil protection and social esteem, whether they be Protestants, Papists, Jews, Mohammedans, or Pagans" — A. Toplady. That, and nothing short of that, is a true Christian and Catholic spirit.

"Seek out of the book of the LORD, and read" (Isa 34:16), for in it alone is His will made known, the divine way of salvation revealed, and a perfect rule and standard of conduct set before us. That Book is a divine communication, an authoritative, "Thus says the LORD." It is addressed to the entire human race, and is binding on every member of it. By it, each of us will be judged in the Day to come. It is therefore both the duty and privilege of every person to read it for himself, that he familiarize himself with its contents, perceive their meaning, and conform his conduct to its requirements.

It is to be read reverently, for it is the voice of the Most High God which speaks therein. It is to be read impartially, setting aside personal prejudices and preconceived ideas, receiving it without doubting or question. It is to be read humbly, begging its Author to enlighten the understanding, and teach His way. It is to be read constantly, daily, so that we may drink into its spirit and make it our Counselor. It is not only to be read, but also "seek out of the book": take the trouble to compare one part with another, and thereby obtain its full light on each particular subject and detail. By such pains, it will be found that the Holy Scriptures are self-interpreting.

In a matter so momentous as my obtaining a correct understanding of God's will for me; and where the eternal interests of my soul are concerned — it deeply concerns me to obtain first-hand information of the same; and not to accept blindly what others say and do, or receive without question what any church teaches. I must rigidly examine and test by God's Word, all that I hear and read. "So then every one of us shall give account of himself to God" (Rom 14:12). Religion is an intensely personal thing which cannot be transacted by proxy. It consists of immediate dealings between the individual soul and its Maker. No one can repent for me, believe for me, love God for me, or render obedience to His precepts on my behalf. Those are personal acts which God holds me responsible to perform.

Next Part Private Judgement. 2

Back to Arthur Pink