The Scriptural Bounds of Liberty of Conscience

Rev. D. M. Boyd

(This article consists of extracts from the paper given at the Theological Conference in December 1989. Some additional material is supplied in the footnotes.)

Introduction

The full title of the paper is quite extensive, but, as I wish to lead up to current issues, I shall not cover theory as much as I should like; nor do I intend developing at length what should be well-known positions. I shall try to point in the directions to which thought should be given for, apart altogether from its topicality in connection with the recent schism¹, this is a subject that impinges on the Church at large in a multi-cultural, pluralistic, multifaith, so-called post-Christian era, in which religious syncretism and the New Age movement are trying to take over.

One might have thought that such a book as Samuel Bolton’s The True Bounds of Christian Freedom² (1645; Banner of Truth, 1964, 1978) would more than supply the material for such a paper as this, but sadly this is not so. It does not deal with conscience so much as with the place of the law in the Christian life. For the purpose of this paper, its conclusions will be taken for granted.

1. In May 1989, the Associated Presbyterian Churches separated from the Free Presbyterian Church of Scotland because of the decision in the much-publicised Lord Mackay case, but ostensibly on the grounds of liberty of conscience.

2. This book is one of the Banner of Truth’s top-selling paperbacks at present, possibly, I suppose, because of the demand from the Christian Reconstruction movement in America. “Across Iain Murray’s Desk”, an insert with the July 1990 B.O.T. magazine.

Before I open the subject, let us remind ourselves of the terms that are thrown around as if they are synonymous. These include conscience, liberty of conscience, the right of private judgment, the application of Christian faith to daily living, and the liberty of the Christian believer. If one adds to these ideas the concepts of liberty, religious toleration, freedom of religion, freedom under the law, freedom of thought, freedom of expression, freedom of speech, freedom of the press and freedom of will, one can see that confusion will reign unless we are careful to define and distinguish our terms. I do not intend to define all these. My aim is simply to remind us to ask ourselves what subject is being spoken about at any one time.

Conscience

1. What is conscience? Conscience is the faculty of a rational creature to judge between right and wrong. This is a moral judgment. There is a difference between judging, on the one hand, between true and false and, on the other hand, between right and wrong. For example, whether a particular newspaper was published on a particular Sabbath, or a particular shop was open or a train ran on a particular Sabbath, are matters for investigation that will result in a judgment as to their truth or falsity. Such a judgment depends on the available evidence, to which we apply our understanding so as to arrive at a judgment. Given the same evidence, most people will come to the same conclusion. However, if one now asks whether these activities are right or wrong, there will be a wide variation in the judgments made. Here we are asking people to make a moral judgment.

It is the exercise of the conscience to make moral judgments. It does so, not merely in relation to evidence but in relation to a standard, by which it makes the judgment as to whether something is right or wrong.

In the past, it was accepted that man should make his moral judgments by the standard of the law of God, as the One to whom we are accountable. Because of the prevailing agnosticism in society this standard has disappeared, and new standards have replaced the law of God. So people now judge whether a thing is right or wrong by their own feelings, or society’s opinion, or by its consequences, such as whether or not it brings the greatest happiness to the greatest number of people. Society has gone through various phases in the formulation of its moral judgments, a subject which is worthy of more study. Utilitarianism and, now, situation ethics are the basic mix out of which our society forms its moral opinions.

The formation of the Free Presbyterian Church of Scotland can be traced to the subject of conscience when we remember that the plea in the old Free Church was about conscientious scruples in subscribing the Westminster Confession of Faith. Rev. D. Macfarlane wrote an article called The Declaratory Act in Court in which he demonstrated the rôle of conscience in the Declaratory Act movement.

The Declaratory Act movement began in the United Presbyterian Church of Scotland, a mainline heir of the Secession churches. The Testimony of the Original Secession Church bears witness to the misuse of conscience when in its preface it refers to the “modern dogma of sovereignty of the conscience as distinguished from its liberty.”⁴ We shall look at liberty later, but notice that men frequently make the mistake of considering their conscience to be itself the standard and judge by which actions are weighed. The common expression, “I cannot do it, for it is against my conscience to do so” has resulted in unthinking people accepting the view that this means that conscience is the supreme arbiter and standard.

Conscience is not itself the standard. It makes moral judgments by reference to a particular moral standard. The important question is: what moral standard are we to use? Conscience is not the standard or rule of life; “The only rule to direct us how we may glorify and enjoy him” is not one’s conscience but “the word of God, which is contained in the scriptures of the Old and New Testament.” (Shorter Catechism, Answer 2). In The Declaratory Act in Court, a character called Mr. Declaratory Act is asked the question, “What do you mean by liberty of conscience?” He replies, “I mean that everyone should act according to his conscience.” Mr Faithful rejoins, “Conscience is not the rule of action, but the Word of God.”

1. The Declaratory Act in Court, Notes of a lecture at Kishorn, by the Rev. D. Macfarlane, Dingwall (R. M. Carruthers, Inverness, 1928); Free Presbyterian Magazine, 1927, Vol 31, pp 374-380, 408-414.

2. A Testimony to the Truths of Christ, Edinburgh, 1896.

3. Let us now notice that conscience is defiled in fallen man. Darkness has invaded his understanding, so that the thoughts of the imagination of his heart are only evil continually. The heart of man is deceitful above all things and desperately wicked, so that it is naturally biased in its own favour and cannot give an impartial judgment on moral things with respect to itself. However, it will often judge others, from which Paul, in Romans chapter 2, shows that man is inexcusable. By showing that he has the capacity to judge others, he condemns himself, who does the very same things. At the same time, man tries to suppress the knowledge of God and, consequently, the law of God. However, the Apostle shows in Romans chapter 2 that, in spite of all his attempts, the knowledge of that law is still in man. Therefore man is a responsible creature who will give an account for suppressing or ignoring that law as his standard. Further, man can sear his conscience: repeated ignoring of the voice of conscience can lead him to consider that what he does is not wrong.⁵

4. Bunyan has described the development of debauchery in conscience in his character, Mr Recorder, near the beginning of his classic, The Holy War. Repeated references are made throughout the book to Mr Recorder, or Mr Conscience; Sovereign Grace Union and Evangelical Press edition, London, 1968, pp16-19 (his debauchery), 103-106, 108, 111, 116-118, 124-132, 138, 143, 171 (his limits and a caution), 172 (his liberty), 191, 193-5, 223, 261. See also The Method of The Divine Government Physical and Moral, James M’Cosh, Edinburgh, 1850, Book Third, pp 282-466; and The Works of Thomas Goodwin, D.D. Vol 10, Book 7, The corruption and defilements of conscience, Edinburgh 1865.

5. In the effectual calling of the elect by the Spirit of God, a radical change begins to take place. The sinner, being called by God’s grace, begins to recognise God’s sovereignty over him and propriety in him. In conviction of sin his conscience begins to measure himself, his thoughts, words and actions, by the standard of God’s Word and finds himself wanting. Conscience then begins to accuse him and to show him his guilt in the sight of God. This experience is preparatory to that godly sorrow which is to lead to evangelical repentance through faith in Christ as God’s appointed Saviour. Practical knowledge of the workings of conscience is therefore elementary to those who have been called effectually by God’s grace.

We speak metaphorically of light being brought into the understanding by the effectual work of the Holy Spirit as He uses the Word of God to convince the sinner of its authority and claims. He is taught to humble himself, to renounce his own opinions and to submit to the authority of God’s Word. We speak, therefore, of an enlightened conscience, or an informed conscience. There is also a well-informed conscience, as we shall now come to notice.

1. The expression “a well-informed conscience” draws attention to the development or growth in the ability of the conscience to judge. The believer endeavours to bring every thought into captivity to the obedience of Christ (2 Cor 10: 5). This is a lifelong process: firstly, to discover what is the revealed will of God in Scripture; secondly, to find the grace necessary for the bringing of every thought into captivity. This leads to believers growing in grace and in the knowledge of the Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, and to becoming mature Christians “who by reason of use have their senses exercised to discern both good and evil” (Hebrews 5: 14). It is this which makes the difference between those who are weak and those who are strong in the faith (e.g. Romans 14).

It is clear, then, that conscience is the faculty of the soul which makes moral judgments based upon a standard. Conscience is not itself the standard of morality.

Liberty of Conscience

When we speak of liberty of conscience we do not mean the conscience’s right or ability to judge as it pleases. This is to verge towards licence rather than liberty. We are, on the contrary, referring to a divine right conferred upon man which is summarised in the Westminster Confession of Faith, chapter 20, section 2, in those well-known words, “God alone is Lord of the conscience, and hath left it free from the doctrines and commandments of men, which are, in any thing, contrary to His Word; or beside it, if matters of faith, or worship. So that, to believe such doctrines, or to obey such commands, out of conscience, is to betray true liberty of conscience: and the requiring of an implicit faith, and an absolute and blind obedience, is to destroy liberty of conscience, and reason also.” I have quoted the whole passage because the shorter form is becoming something of a Shibboleth which is degenerating, in the mouths of those that use it, into a cliché. The grandeur of the statement is worthy of full quotation, and of committing to memory.⁶

1. This is the text from the original manuscript written by Cornelius Burges, 1646, edited by S. W. Carruthers.

What divine right is this? It is the right of every man to say that he will have no Lord of his conscience but the only, living, true God. In practice, this applies to doctrines and commandments being imposed upon people, which is why the Confession goes on to mention these: “He has left it free from the doctrines and commandments of men.” But the realm in which it is free is carefully circumscribed: “which are, in any thing, contrary to His Word; or beside it, if matters of faith, or worship.”⁷

1. In the more familiar, Dunlop’s edition of the Westminster Confession of Faith this well-known quotation reads: “… contrary to his word, or beside it, in matters of faith or worship.” The sense is not different.

Any thing that is contrary to the Word of God cannot be imposed upon the conscience of men. The phrase, “or beside it, if matters of faith, or worship”, can best be recognised and understood if we remember that it is referring to the Regulative Principle.⁸ If any thing is a matter of faith, or worship, then it needs the positive sanction of the Word of God before it can be imposed upon the conscience; it is not enough that it is “beside the Word”, (that is, neither commanded nor forbidden by the Word of God but, nevertheless, in addition to it)⁹.

1. At the 1860 American General Assembly, there was a dispute between Dr Charles Hodge and Dr James Henley Thornwell over Church Boards. Thornwell used the Regulative Principle in his argument, and Hodge later, (mistaking the principle for something else) attacked it with liberty of conscience. See The Collected Writings of James Henley Thornwell, Banner of Truth 1986, Vol 4 p632, Thornwell adroitly turned the tables on him by giving not only a masterly explanation of the Regulative Principle, but also by demonstrating that the Westminster Confession of Faith, chapter 20, section 2, supports the Regulative Principle at this very point, i.e. concerning liberty of conscience. ibid. p244-245.

2. The use of this phrase is demonstrated in the following sentence: “The Church has no authority in regulating the manner, appointing the form, or dictating the observance of worship, beside or beyond what the Scripture declares on these points, — the Bible containing the only directory for determining these matters, and the Church having no discretion to add to or alter what is there fixed.” The Church of Christ, James Bannerman, Vol 1, pp337-338, Banner of Truth, 1974. See also, Free Presbyterian Magazine, Vol 41, p324.

One can see that liberty of conscience respects practical things; in this sphere it shows itself to be different from the right of private judgment which is an inner, more personal thing. I believe that the confusion of these two contributes to the passion generated by those who think the right of private judgment is being infringed by the lawful regulation of liberty of conscience.¹⁰

1. “The due exercise of public authority, ecclesiastical or civil, in defending, promoting, settling, and supporting religion, does not imply a denial of the right of private judgment, or private liberty; but only a regulation and subordination of them in society, as the very nature and rules of it require. It implies no necessity of believing, no imposition upon conscience.” Statement of Difference, 1871, Thomas M’Crie, p162. See also, The Practical Philosophy, Robert Lewis Dabney, 1897, Sprinkle Publications 1984, p350.

The Bounds upon Liberty of Conscience

Reference has already been made to the illegitimate appeal to conscience. What sets bounds upon the conscience is the law of God or, more generally, the Word of God. There can also be an illegitimate appeal to liberty of conscience. There are bounds upon liberty of conscience, i.e. there are areas within which it is circumscribed.

Notice that the Westminster Confession of Faith, chapter 20, section 2, deals with liberty of conscience in the context of “the doctrines and commandments of men.” We are in the sphere of imposing upon the conscience by enforcing the doctrines and the commandments of men.

The purpose of God in giving liberty of conscience to man is to allow him to be free to worship and serve God; i.e. it is a right in order to obey God, it is not a right in order to disobey God. No-one can plead liberty of conscience in order to disobey God. God never gave him liberty of conscience for that purpose. This is what the Westminster Confession of Faith, chapter 20, section 3, reinforces: “They who, upon pretence of Christian liberty, do practise any sin, or cherish any lust, do thereby destroy the end of Christian liberty, which is that being delivered out of the hands of our enemies, we might serve the Lord without fear, in holiness and righteousness before Him, all the days of our life.”

Liberty of conscience is necessary in order to obey God because, in this fallen world, men in authority are continually endeavouring to command others to disobey God. Because it is necessary, God has given it to man.

Chapter 20, section 4, of the Westminster Confession of Faith goes on to deal with the lawful limitations upon liberty of conscience. At this stage I shall simply summarise the well-known position of writers upon this subject¹¹. These broad areas are well-known and do not need much explanation.

1. e.g. Bannerman, Vol 1, p164-171.

In summary we may say that the three authorities which circumscribe liberty of conscience are (1) Scripture, (2) lawful¹² civil authority, (3) lawful¹² ecclesiastical authority. The one under contention in the present dispute is the latter one.

1. The qualification “lawful” ultimately resolves itself into Scripture; i.e. lawful civil and ecclesiastical authority are determined by Scripture.

(1) Scripture circumscribes liberty of conscience. When something is contrary to the Word of God, and one pleads liberty of conscience not to do that which is contrary to the Word of God, then it is contradictory to plead liberty of conscience in order to do that very thing! Liberty of conscience has been given in order not to do that which is contrary to the Word of God. It may seem, in the abstract, rather ridiculous to suggest this limitation, but we need to remember that we experienced a recent schism which pleads liberty of conscience in order to attend idolatrous worship and be identified with the idolaters in their idolatry, when the Scripture expressly commands, “Flee from idolatry.”

According to Scripture, one does not have the right to think and do as one pleases and then to plead liberty of conscience. “It is nonsense to hold the view that it is ‘liberty of conscience’ to act contrary to the Word of God. The inalienable ‘right of private judgment’ can only be a ‘right’ if the judgment is in accordance with the revealed will of God in His Word” (Free Presbyterian Magazine, 1945, Vol. 49, p230).

Before moving to the next point, I would remind you here that Scripture puts bounds upon the exercise of individual liberty not only through the law of God but through Gospel motives. In the context of the strong and weak living together, Paul deals with this subject in Romans 14. It is important to recognise that the principles he enunciates there apply only in the sphere of “things indifferent”. The strong are not to use their liberty in such a way as to make others stumble; considerations of love, peace and edification are above the right to exercise one’s liberty. He also explains these Gospel constraints in 1 Corinthians, chapters 8 to 10.

(2) Lawful civil authority circumscribes liberty of conscience. During the poll tax rioting in March 1990, Mr Tony Benn made the comment, “Conscience is above the law.” The following letter was printed in The Daily Telegraph:

“Mr Tony Benn’s latest comment on conscience only demeans this important subject. The old argument that ‘conscience is above the law’ is more fully and accurately stated that it is above the law of man when this law contradicts the law of God — ‘We ought to obey God rather than men.’

The use of conscience by Mr Benn (effectively, we ought to obey conscience rather than men) will destabilise society. In order to restore stability there will be a suppression of spurious conscientious objection which may affect the genuine thing, if we are not careful.”

Mr Kinnock, the leader of Mr Benn’s party, responded to Mr Benn by saying that men ought to examine their consciences.¹³

1. The original paper to the Theological Conference did not include anything on lawful civil authority, but this paragraph is now included not only as a natural interpolation with a recent example, but also as a surprising testimony to the readiness of a national daily newspaper to print the opinions of the Free Presbyterian Church on liberty of conscience so soon after the Lord Mackay affair!

(3) Lawful ecclesiastical authority circumscribes liberty of conscience. Liberty of conscience is a plea not to be forced to act against one’s conscience. The Christian Church is to respect this, for “‘whatsoever is not of faith is sin.’” However, it also recognises that there are weak and strong. Among the godly, there are different views which lead to difficulties. We have already noticed the development in the Christian conscience, which is a source of differences. This was known and recognised by the Apostolic church, and certain guidelines were laid down.

1. Apostolic authority solved many matters, but as Thomas Witherow has shown in The Apostolic Church (1856, 5th ed 1881, Free Presbyterian Publications ed 1954, 1967), the Apostles demonstrated how to resolve disputes in the post-Apostolic church by the Jerusalem Synod in Acts 15 and, I may add, the Jerusalem Presbytery in Acts 21. This is the lawful ecclesiastical authority that was previously mentioned.

2. As time progressed and heresy arose, “the form of sound words” was devised, and subscribed in whatever way they did so. This was the beginning of creedal subscription and of the authority of the Church to require it.¹⁴

3. The scriptural authority for creedal statement, confession and subscription is 2 Tim 2: 2, compared with 2 Tim 1: 13, explained in The Westminster Confession in the Scottish Church, a paper given to the Free Presbyterian Theological Conference in 1987.

This draws attention to these two matters — the courts of the Church and the constitution of the Church (which embraces its confession, which office-bearers subscribe as ordination vows). Each of these has been attacked in the history of the Christian Church. The constitution of various churches and creedal subscription were attacked vehemently in the past, and these subjects enter into the raison d’être of the Free Presbyterian Church of Scotland. The authority of the courts of the Church has also been under investigation and attack in the controversy over Protest in our midst.

This still leaves the area of how the Courts of the Church are to come to their judgments without offending liberty of conscience and yet lawfully circumscribe it. This is where the Regulative Principle comes in, which I shall notice later, which is to ensure that the consciences of the godly, including the weak, are not offended. I may mention, in passing, that Presbyterianism, by its very nature, comes nearest to ensuring this — cf. Proverbs 11.14: “in the multitude of counsellors there is safety”; 15.22: “without counsel purposes are disappointed: but in the multitude of counsellors they are established”; 24.6: “in the multitude of counsellors there is safety.”

The limits on ecclesiastical authority are as follows:¹⁵

1. The source of its authority is Christ; therefore the key of discipline is the application of the Word of God to a particular case. It is simply ministerial and cannot act independently of Christ’s Word.
2. It is spiritual, and cannot inflict bodily or temporal censures.

3. It has regard to the erring brother as a brother, not as an enemy, else he would be excommunicated. It is therefore remedial, and his edification is to be sought.

4. Bannerman, Vol 1, p247-248.

(To be continued — the second half of the lecture deals with the place of the Regulative Principle with respect to Liberty of Conscience; the APC idea of liberty of conscience is not consistent with that of the Westminster Confession of Faith and goes against the Regulative Principle; the Source of the modern idea of liberty and religious toleration; and the on-going challenge to the whole Christian community in the field of ideas.)