no small importance, we have reason to hope, that our superiors will no longer bind either themselves or us to an implicit acquiescence in an authority, which may occasionally be extremely inconsistent with our original obligations as Christians, as well as with the distinguishing principles of our profession as Protestants. Whatever expedients of peace and order their own sort of prudence, or the exigencies of the times they lived in, might suggest to these venerable Fathers, they certainly had no right to prescribe articles of faith to us. And, should either they themselves, or any other in their name, pretend to it, we beg leave to remind them of a capital maxim, to the truth of which the Fathers themselves have occasionally born their testimony, namely, The Scriptures of the Old and New Testament contain all things necessary to salvation, and are the sole ground of the faith of a Christian.*

Upon this principle, all imposed subscriptions to articles of faith, and religious doctrines, conceived in unscriptural terms, and enforced by human authority, are utterly unwarrantable, and not to be defended but by arguments and pretences highly dishonourable to the sacred writings, and, in many

* For a compendious view of the testimony of the Fathers to the sufficiency of the holy scriptures as a rule of religion, the reader may consult a book entitled, The Divine Oracles, written by the learned and candid Mr John Brekell, printed for Waugh, &c. 1749.

cases, contradictory to the express contents of them.

But, forasmuch as there never yet was any instance of a prosperous usurpation destitute of advocates to lay in for it a claim of right and justice, it would be strange if this matter of subscription, wherein such large and opulent bodies of men are interested, should be left to shift for itself. What the orators of the church have offered on this behalf we shall now briefly consider.

CHAP. II.

On a Right to establish Confessions as Tests of Orthodoxy.

THE fundamental position, on which the authority of established confessions in protestant communions depends, is this. "Every particular church, considered as a society, has a right, as other societies have, to secure its own peace and welfare, by all lawful means; and, consequently, to prescribe such terms of communion as appear to be the most expedient for the purpose; provided that nothing be required, under this pretence, which is contrary to the word of God, or inconsistent with the liberty of other churches."

To this it has been answered in short, "That, by admitting the principle of self defence and self

preservation in matters of religion, all the persecutions of the Heathens against the Christians, and even the popish Inquisition, may be justified."* If the church of England, for example, has a right to fix her own terms of communion, and, in consequence of that, to secure the obedience of her members by temporal rewards and penalties; the church of Portugal must, upon the same principles, have an equal right to secure herself by the discipline of an holy office, or how otherwise she thinks proper.

The proviso, that, "church ordinances be agreeable to the word of God," will not in the present case help the protestant churches at all. Established confessions, being human compositions, must either be subject to examination by the private judgment of those who profess, as all Protestants do, to make the written word their only rule of religion; or else the church must claim a right of interpreting the Scriptures for all her members, exclusive of the right of private judgment.† The former of these princi

See Bishop Hoadly's Speech for the Repeal of the Occasional Conformity and Schism Acts, in Tindal's Continuation of Rapin Thoyras, 8vo. vol. xxvii. p. 237.

The late Bishop Conybeare, in his famous Subscription Sermon, argues from the consent required by the Apostles to their doctrines, to the consent required by succeeding church governors to human articles. This fallacy has been too apt to pass without examination; but the supposition upon which it is supported, is indeed neither more nor less than this, "Scripture truths and the church's explications stand upon the same authority."

ples manifestly precludes the right of the church to establish any thing as a condition of Christian communion, without the previous consent of all her members; that is to say, of all who, without that condition, would have a right to Christian communion.* The latter, indeed, vests the church with a full measure of authority to establish what she pleases; but then it is an authority which every protestant church most expressly disclaims, and condemns in the church of Rome as an impudent and groundless usurpation.

There is, indeed, nothing more evident, than that every Christian hath a right to search the Scriptures; a right which he cannot transfer, either to any church or to any single person, because it is his indispensable duty to exercise it personally for himself. And if it is his duty to search, it must also be his duty to determine for himself; and, if he finds just cause to dissent

* Honest old Rogers, by the church which hath authority in controversies of faith, understands not only the aggregate body, but every member of sound judgment in the same. Cath. Doct. Art. xx. Propos. 3. well knowing that every intelligent Christian, with the scriptures before him, is, upon protestant principles, and in decrees of this nature, a church to himself. This leaves no room for Bishop Burnet's distinction between an infallible authority, and an authority of order, which last he faintly insinuates, might be safely intrusted with the body of the clergy. But his Lordship, to do him justice, qualifies this with a proviso, that this body is properly disposed for the province. Perhaps it might be as difficult to find such a body of men, as to find single persons without mistakes. See Bishop Burnet's Exposition, fol, p. 195.

from any or all the human establishments upon earth.

Some writers on this subject discover an inclination to deny the right of private judgment in every case where it is opposed to church authority. These we leave to reconcile their principles with their separation from Rome. Others attempt, by various arguments, some of which will occur hereafter, to prove that the authority of the church to frame and settle confessions of faith and doctrine for all her members, is perfectly consistent with the right of private judgment. But, to discover the fallacy of all arguments to this purpose, it is only necessary to consider, that, if this supposed authority was vigorously exerted, and applied in all cases, as it ought to be, if the authority is real, and if, on the other hand, the people were diligent and careful in searching the Scriptures every one for himself, as all Protestants agree they ought to do, the consequence would most probably be, that the far greater part of honest and sensible Christians would be excluded from the communion of every church which has an established confession. For where is there one of these confessions which does not contain some very material decisions, from which an intelligent Christian, who hath duly examined the Scriptures, may not reasonably dissent? I had almost said, where is there one of them to which a knowing and thinking Christian can assent in all points, without prosti