From this view of Christ’s authority is derived another principle scarcely less momentous,—the absolute sufficiency of the sacred Scriptures, “the word of Christ,” to prescribe the faith and regulate the practice of his followers. A revelation inadequate to these purposes, it is generally admitted, would be at once derogatory to God, and a cruel mockery of erring man. Nor can the perplexity arising out of contending human powers, and conflicting articles of faith and rules of practice, be avoided, but by submitting all to one criterion,—“to the law and to the testimony,”—and by the consideration that “if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.” [5]
The Bible, possessing such claims, addresses itself to every rational creature with an individuality which none can evade, and fixes upon each a responsibility which cannot be delegated. Hence there appears (at least in the apprehension of a nonconformist) to devolve upon every one to whom the page of revelation is accessible, the sacred and inalienable right, or rather the imperious and solemn duty, of personally examining its contents and submitting to its precepts. Since its Author has commissioned none to dictate its interpretation, he has, in effect, granted to all a perfect freedom of inquiry and discussion. Nor is it less a duty than a privilege, to aid, as circumstances may allow, in elucidating its doctrines and requirements, and in promoting the practice and the promulgation of such views of religion and forms of worship as an enlightened conscience may approve. This right alone, it is urged, could justify “Peter and the other apostles” when they openly disobeyed the command of the high priest; and, without claiming any special exemption in their own case, laid down as the ground of their conduct, the general principle “we ought to obey God rather than men.” [7a] They deduced their duty from their convictions; and while their enemies “took counsel to slay them,” they firmly resisted the interference of human authority between their own consciences and that God who “seeketh such to worship Him” as “worship Him in spirit and in truth.” [7b] Unhappily there has not always been found, among persecutors, a Gamaliel to point out the propriety and the result of allowing the free publication of religious opinions. “Refrain,” said he, in terms, a due regard to which would have saved mankind from an inconceivable amount of suffering; “refrain from these men, and let them alone: for if this counsel or this work be of men, it will come to nought: but if it be of God, ye cannot overthrow it; lest haply ye be found even to fight against God.” [7c]
Nonconformity, then, dates its existence from the time when the secular power first infringed upon the liberty wherewith Christ had made his disciples free. It professes to be jealous of his authority, and to adhere to his laws and institutions. Though ever so palatable or ever so bitter a draught be presented from another source, it still dares to draw from the well-spring of truth the waters of everlasting life which he came to dispense. Whatever, in modes of faith or forms of worship, may be enjoined by civil or ecclesiastical powers, it prefers “to keep close to the college of fishermen, and to the doctrine of inspired apostles; to a Scriptural creed and a spiritual worship.” [8] It claims, in a word, to be the only true conformity.
The right of private judgment in religious matters, which follows immediately from the first principles of dissent, has been too generally denied by the rulers of this world to their subjects. Nevertheless, its enemies have frequently been constrained to bear a practical testimony in its favour. Under varying circumstances in our own history, for instance, this indestructible privilege has been assumed, alternately, by the christian convert from paganism, by the protestant, and the papist, again by the reformer, again by the Roman catholic, and, still more recently, by the puritan, and the dissenter from protestant establishments. This is the moving power which has caused, and the unfailing clew which has run through, all these changes, and will only find its termination in the perfect concord and liberty of the universal church.
To the truly liberal and candid, it must be a subject of profound regret, that, for so many ages, no party duly appreciated, or heartily countenanced, the liberty which each, in turn, asserted. But in proportion to the sorrow which such a view of ecclesiastical history occasions, will be the joy, if a gradual though tardy approach to the full recognition of the rights of conscience can be perceived; and especially if it be discovered, that there has long existed a numerous and intelligent portion of the christian world, among whom those rights have not only been claimed, but generally conceded; not merely assumed to serve a purpose, but watched and advocated as the invaluable and inalienable birthright of man. And although it will be admitted as a sad evidence of human frailty, if intolerance be found lurking even among the class of persons just referred to, yet, as a body, they ought never, on that account, to be ranked with those whose principles would lead them to enthral the conscience within creeds and formularies of man’s devising. The characteristic views of congregational dissenters, containing the very elements of freedom, rise up to condemn, with double energy, the least departure from its laws in them. They, assuredly, should be the last to lord it over the consciences of their fellow-men, who, themselves, acknowledge in religious affairs, no lawgiver but Christ, and no directory but the Bible. [10]
A glance at some of the great religious alternations which have occurred in England, will serve to illustrate the preceding remarks, and, at the same time, furnish occasion to trace, imperfectly, the origin and operation of dissenting principles in the locality to which the following pages are especially devoted. Perhaps it may be found that institutions which, even by the candid and charitable, are sometimes supposed to have their foundation in a morbid disaffection towards secular rulers, or at best, in a too prurient scrupulousness, and to lead to anarchy and infidelity, are based on nobler principles and tend to happier results.
In various parts of the Roman empire, multitudes were converted by the instrumentality of the apostles and their successors, and many died in testimony of their sincerity, and in defence of the right to deviate from human authorities in their religious creed. All the sanctions of Christianity were addressed to the reason, the affections, the hopes, and the fears, of the individual. Appealing from human tribunals to the commission she had received from the King of kings, she challenged the soul as the province of her undisputed sway; and the sincere convert to Jesus Christ felt that he dared not, and could not, had he dared, resign his faith at the bidding of any mortal.
When Christianity was adopted as the religion of the empire, and the clergy became wealthy and ambitious, the bishops of Rome assumed a superiority over their brethren, and announced themselves as possessing infallible authority in matters of faith. A claim, which, in the darkness of the middle ages, met with too ready a compliance, and has strikingly exemplified the fearful consequences of departing from the plain rules of the New Testament.
During the long reign of popery in England the general perusal of the Scriptures was prohibited; the services of the sanctuary were enveloped in a foreign language; a contribution towards the aggrandizement of the papal see furnished the customary atonement for the worst crimes; and the extermination of heretics was esteemed the brightest of virtues.
At length Wycliffe appeared;—he urged upon all the study of the Scriptures as a book “full of authority.” [14]—Luther afterwards announced himself a dissenter from the established faith. The reformation was begun in Germany; and the writings of the reformer were disseminated at home.