Is freedom of religion a biblical concept?

Now this appears to me a fact of very great importance. The use which the Gentile makes of his power is to set up a religion connected with the polities of the kingdom, a religion for present earthly purposes. Where this is the case, religion cannot be left between God and the conscience. It is no longer a question of having a real conviction as to God and His truth, nor is there liberty to judge the imposture. The worship devised by the Gentile king is bound down upon the subject under penalty of death.

There may be certain things which hinder, for a season, the natural results of the world's will in having its religion condemned. And this has been the case for some time. For the last fifty years and more, every one knows there has been a certain system of opinion, commonly called "liberalism." This has got hold of men's minds. In no way does it respect God and His word as such. Its great stock-in-trade is the rights of man. Its cardinal virtue is, that all should be left free to think, act, and worship as they please. As long as the idea of man's rights is allowed to have play, the mercy of God turns it into an occasion for Christians, having a conscience towards Himself, to pass quietly through, and worship God according to His will. And as it was always unquestionable that God claimed the right over His own people; as His revealed will alone can rightly govern them; so, as the Father, He now seeks His children, that they may worship Him in spirit and in truth. The renewed heart and conscience delight in His will and find the chief blessedness here in exalting Him. To the believer, that will is more peremptory than the absolutism of the heathen king. Liberalism really dislikes this exclusive claim over the conscience. Still, it has led to a sort of calm in the world; and the full exercise of its authority, as to religion, is in abeyance for the time. For, apart from temporary circumstances, none can deny that, wherever there is a religion introduced by the monarch, for the guidance of his realm, necessarily it does not admit of difference, contradiction, or compromise. This would defeat the purpose for which it is imposed. But it is to fight against God. The monarch himself may have a conscience, and he is, of course, bound to worship God according to His will. But the using the authority of the realm to coerce others is the denial, practically, of God's direct control over the individual conscience.

In these days of liberty in our cherished England, it is difficult to realise the bondage of the past. That there was a time when it was considered a crime to read the word of God, seems hard for us to understand. A great deal depends upon the sovereign, and we owe much, under God, to the peaceful reign of our honoured Queen. There have been monarchs on the throne of England who would neither read the Bible themselves nor allow their subjects to do so. In their self-will and ignorance, they quite overlooked the fact, that a man's conscience is not a thing which a sovereign can order, as he would a servant. He may command his subjects outwardly to accept the religion preferred by royalty; but a man can never be made to believe that which he doubts, even at the command of a monarch.

There is no other way of managing that ever I heard of. Everywhere men agree to submit to human governments, more or less faulty, because of the protection they give; for experience proves that the worst of them is better than anarchy. The citizen says, "If I surrender to you my natural savage rights of offence and defence, I expect you to protect me." The government says," If I am to protect you, I must have your allegiance and obedience." Of course in the human social contract this is limited to physical matters. The rulers do not protect our souls and therefore should not dictate to our consciences. When the rulers of Jerusalem or Bedford commanded Peter or Bunyan not to preach, these very properly refused to obey. They had commands to the contrary from a higher court. At the same time when a government commands that one shall not preach at such and such a particular place because of interference with the public convenience, it is entirely within its jurisdiction, and should be obeyed. Many zealous Christians get themselves into trouble and create scandal through not seeing this distinction.

There judgment commences. We must "cease to do evil" before we "learn to do well" The Lord comes to us as "the God of peace;" still it is, "Down with the idols in your father's house." We may have been restless in service; but, in the midst of much doing, how little have we done this, or ever practically attempted to set up God's altar "in the ordered place." Man's will has not been invaded. It is of the essence of wilfulness to say, 'I have a right to worship God how I like.' Obedience to God is the saint's rule and liberty. Not all the powers in the world have a title to interfere with this. And, moreover, if God says, 'Pull down the altar of Baal,' He will give strength to do it.

There judgment commences. We must "cease to do evil," before we "learn to do well." The Lord comes to us as "the God of peace"; still it is, 'Down with the idols in your father's house.' We may have been restless in service; but in the midst of much doing, how little have we done this, or ever practically attempted to set up God's altar "in the ordered place." Man's will has not been invaded. It is of the essence of wilfulness to say, 'I have a right to worship God how I like.' Obedience to God is the saint's rule and liberty. Not all the powers in the world have a title to interfere with this. And moreover, if God says, 'Pull down the altar of Baal,' He will give strength to do it.

Scripture is very careful to press the respect and obedience which are due to authority, but it is not a Christian's work to occupy himself with settling questions of the earth. He has nothing to do with the ways and means whereby kings or other governors have reached their place of authority. There may have been wars, and revolutions, and all sorts of questionable means for them to arrive at such exaltation. What he has to do is to obey, as a matter of fact, those who are in authority. "Let every soul be subject unto higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God." (Rom. 13:1.) Scripture does not demand obedience to the powers that ought to be, but to "the powers that be." No doubt this may expose to danger where a revolutionary leader usurps authority for a season; but God will care for results, and the duty of the Christian remains simple and sure. He obeys the powers that be. Notwithstanding, all obedience in man has its limits. There are cases where the Christian is bound, I do not say to be disobedient, still less to set up his own authority (which is never his duty), but "to obey God rather than men." (Acts 5:29.) Where earthly authority demands sin against God, for instance where a Government interferes with and forbids the stewardship of the believer in proclaiming the name of Christ, it is evident that it is a question of a lower authority setting aside the highest. Consequently the principle of obedience to which the Christian is bound forbids his being swayed by what is of man to abandon what he knows to be the will of God.

The decree would be easily understood: it was simple and brief, and the penalty was plain. Nor was there much, according to human thoughts, required. An act of prostration before the king's idol at the appointed moment, and the whole thing was over. But the decree needs a little examination. It was, as before observed, the intrusion of man's will into God's domain. Obedience to the powers that be, as may be hereafter more fully explained, is a sacred duty; but obedience to the powers that be can only be rendered within the circle of their own lawful authority. If they step out of this circle, as the rulers in Jerusalem did when they commanded the apostles not to teach or to preach in the name of Jesus, they must be told, as Peter and John answered, "We must obey God rather than men." Absolute monarch, therefore, as Nebuchadnezzar was, he stepped outside of his own domain, and claimed for himself what was due to God alone, when he issued his decree.

“For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil.” This is certainly the normal state. There is a point surely beyond which we must render no obedience either to rulers or anyone else except God. If they were to demand of us what is due only to God — worship, for instance, as in the case of Daniel with Darius, or his three friends with Nebuchadnezzar — we must firmly refuse. If they require us to definitely sin against God, it is for us to boldly use the language of Peter — “We ought to obey God rather than men.” But this is far different even than unjust statutes or practices that are hard and oppressive. So long as a good conscience toward God is not compromised, it is better that we suffer in subjection, and commit the keeping of our souls to God, as unto a faithful Creator. We must remember that “the heart of the king is in the hand of the Lord: He turneth it whithersoever He will.”

A text (2 Peter 1:20) is sometimes quoted, or rather misquoted, in denial of the right of private judgment, "no prophecy of the Scripture is of any private interpretation;" but such is not the meaning of this text. It simply means that no prophecy of the Scripture is of self-interpretation, or of isolated meaning and application — that it must be taken as part only of the whole co-ordinated system of Divine revelation. This holds true of the word of God generally, though applying here more particularly to the coming kingdom. Acts of Uniformity, or the crafty policy of Rome, in instigating the civil power to punish those who, desirous of rendering unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's, and unto God the things which are God's, cannot, if obedient to their Lord, accept the dogmas and dictates of a cruel and corrupt church, may bring about a certain amount of outward uniformity; yet, after all, we never read in Scripture of the unity of the church, though we do read of the unity of the Spirit, and of endeavouring to keep this in the bond of peace. But the Spirit is truth; unity in error, therefore, has another origin and source. "To whom coming as unto a living stone, disallowed indeed of men, but chosen of God and precious, ye also as living stones are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ" (1 Peter 2:4-5). This was addressed by the Apostle "to the strangers scattered," etc., evidently converted Jews, true Christians, and applies no less to true Christians now; none the less, if true Christians are sadly scattered in the days in which we live. Living stones themselves, and coming unto Christ as a living stone, they are built up a spiritual house, in the binding power of the Holy Spirit.

The relation of individual conscience with God is the great and true principle of Protestantism, no doubt greatly lost now, in that which has come in. It is not the right to judge for oneself, as is said, but the direct connection of the conscience with God. "We ought to obey God rather than men." Man has not the right to judge, but neither has he the right to interpose himself between God and man, so as to intercept the direct action of God on the conscience. The ordinary interpretation of this principle of Protestantism is the root of Rationalism; the denial of this same principle, taken in its true sense, is Popery. Real intercourse between God and the soul preserves the Christian from each of these errors. As long as there is only man, there is but place for one or the other of these two things, because it is only man that is in question. If God enters upon the scene, there can be neither one nor the other, because God is there. But, in order that it may be so practically, we must be kept in His presence.