ations, I will now proceed to review your examination of our articles, on which you have proposed to rely for your vindication.

On the first five articles of our church, those which relate to the doctrine of the Holy Trinity, you say, "happily no imputation has been cast against us; and on these, even the church of Rome is allowed to have transmitted faithfully the doctrine of the primitive church." In all this I readily concur, though without entertaining on this account much reverence for the fidelity of the church of Rome, because I perceive that it is to be ascribed to the absence of temptation, the corrupting principle of the church of Rome having been a desire of establishing a system of priestly domination, and not, as among the orientals, a disposition to indulge in speculative refinements on the mystery of the divine nature. Neither can I consider as much to be commended the fidelity of a church, which, to veil its own idolatry, has expunged a commandment from the decalogue, and, to screen from inquiry its manifold abuses, has shut up the written word of God from the laity.

8

I also concur with you in holding, that "the natural bias of what terms itself a scriptural theology, is to a naked creed," to a creed stripped of the distinguishing doctrines of our religion, because, in appealing to the authority of private judgment, it

tends to generate an excessive self-confidence in the minds of individuals. But does it therefore follow, that the exercise of private judgment, in collecting from the scripture the essential doctrines of our religion, should be proscribed? Is there no danger of a contrary kind? I know that you protest against any warning reference to the example of the church of Rome, because you teach that the promised protection of Christ had been withdrawn. I have already reasoned against this distinction, and I will not repeat what I have urged. I will, therefore, merely state the conclusion to which I have myself been led, that the path of the sincere Christian lies between two opposite dangers; that of unduly confiding in his private judgment, and so being hurried into an unscriptural rationalism, and that of too implicitly submitting to the guidance of his church, and so being seduced into all the corrupt tenets and practices of an ambitious hierarchy. The church of England has happily taken that middle course, as will appear from the articles, neither referring all consideration of doctrine to the judgment of every individual, nor yet setting up an authority distinct from the written word, to which individuals should be bound to submit implicitly in every case their private judgment, as to a commissioned expositor of the faith.

In proceeding through the articles, you take together the sixth, Of the sufficiency of the holy scriptures for salvation, and the twentieth, Of the

authority of the church; to which I conceive you should have added the twenty-first, Of the authority of general councils, as you attribute so much to that unity, which permits a general council to be assembled. These involve the consideration of the main question of this controversy, as proposing to determine the nature and extent of the authority of the general church of Christ.

We all readily admit the church to be the witness, on whose testimony we must rely for the genuineness of the records of our religion; we all, moreover, admit the testimony of the church to be of great value in interpreting these records, as it has transmitted to us, together with the records themselves, a knowledge of the interpretation given to them by those, who lived in times near to that of the original communication of our religion, and may, therefore, be believed to have received by tradition from the inspired teachers some knowledge of their true acceptation. But your tenets require much more than this, for they demand that we should esteem the church to be, not only the witness, but also the authorised expounder of the sacred writings; so that, in the consideration of the true faith, nothing is left to the exercise of private judgment, except, perhaps, to ascertain what it is, which the church may have determined on the subject.

Of this further claim of authority for the church, I perceive nothing in these articles. The sixth,

on the contrary, appears very plainly to refer the whole to the judgment of individuals. "Holy scripture," saith the article, "containeth all things necessary to salvation: so that whatsoever is not read therein, nor may be proved thereby, is not to be required of any man that it should be believed as an article of the faith, or be thought requisite or necessary to salvation." For determining what may properly be considered and received as articles of faith, we are directed to the scriptures, to ascertain, as we best may, what is read therein; or, if it should not have been precisely delivered, may, however, be proved thereby. This direction must seem to be idle and unmeaning, if the church was to be the authoritative expositor of the true meaning of the scriptures. Who is to read for this purpose, or to collect the proof? The church, in proposing an article of faith, has already judged. The true sense of the scriptures, if to be determined by the church, has been determined in the very act of proposing it; and the individual has only to receive implicitly, and without hesitation, whatever has been so proposed.

The twentieth article does indeed state, that the church has 66 authority in controversies of faith." But what is the meaning of this word authority? It is plainly not used here to signify a power, from which there is no appeal to the judgment of individuals, for the article had just before ascribed to the church "power to decree

rites or ceremonies," and then, changing the term, applies this other one, authority, to controversies of faith. In regard to rites or ceremonies the individual may be required to yield entire submission, for they properly relate only to the order, which should be observed in the outward acts of a church; but in controversies of faith the case is different, as these relate to the opinions to be entertained in the minds of individuals, and should, therefore, be addressed to their conviction. The authority here

claimed for the church must, therefore, be understood not to exceed the limit of respectful consideration, leaving still to every individual the liberty of examining for himself the determination of the church, so far as he may be enabled by his abilities and opportunities. And with this interpretation the remainder of this twentieth article well agrees. "And yet," it adds, as if an apprehension were felt that the ascription even of this altered term might be too rigorously interpreted, "it is not lawful for the church to ordain any thing that is contrary to God's word written, neither may it so expound one place of scripture that it be repugnant to another. Wherefore, although the church be a witness and a keeper of holy writ, yet, as it ought not to decree any thing against the same, so besides the same ought it not to enforce any thing to be believed for necessity of salvation." These very strong expressions plainly signify, that the authority ascribed to the church is of a very qualified nature,

D