tion: though with all these divine attestations in their favour-their mildness, their humility, their opposition to every secular principle, their solemn renunciation of all force and compulsion, in enforcing obedience to their mandates, and their uniform simplicity and spirituality, present a striking contrast to the worldly maxims, the haughty domination, the arrogant impositions, the irrational dogmatising, and the ferocious intolerance, which have been sanctioned and displayed by the Church of Rome. The Apostles not only wrought miracles, but communicated the power of working them. They exhibited the signs of a divine commission; nor were those signs obscure, unintelligible and of doubtful import. It required no circuitous argumentation to prove their claims. An appeal was made to the senses, as well as the reason of mankind; and the seal of heaven was visibly affixed to their credentials.*

It might be expected, if the Christian economy had required in its progress, as well as in its origin, a living, oracular and authoritative tribunal, by which all matters pertaining to faith and conscience, were to be infallibly determined, that there should be some allusion to an ecclesiastical provision for this purpose, in the inspired writings of the Apostles; that its jurisdiction should be specified, and its extent of authority defined; that the Church or association to be invested with this dread responsibility, should be clearly described, so as to leave no doubt on the mind of one, anxious to ascertain the plain unequivocal sense of Scripture on the subject. The evidence of such an authority being appointed for the future government of the Church, ought to resemble in its certainty and distinctness that, by

*Some observations on the pretended miracles of the Church of Rome, will be found in the Appendix. NOTE G.

which the Apostolic claims are supported, if it were intended like theirs, to be infallible and decisive. The New Testament, however, gives us no intimations whatever on this subject; it assures us only of the perpetuity of the Christian cause, and the spiritual presence of the Saviour with all his true disciples. It does not contain A SINGLE TEXT Concerning 'apostolic succession'-the 'centre and seat of Catholic unity'-'the prerogatives of the See of St. Peter,' or the infallibility of any uninspired men, or set of men in any part of the Christian world. On all these points, it affords us no instruction; and the advocates of the Roman hierarchy must have recourse to other sources of information and authority.

Combining the arguments involved in these reasonings and illustrations, I conceive they will support the following important deductions.

FIRST, That the authority claimed by the Church of Rome invalidates the unalienable right of private judgment, and secures no advantages that are not far more efficiently and safely provided for, without the admission of that authority. I am aware that the Romanists, invariably deny the right of private judgment. On no subject, do we meet with more frequent declamation. It is represented as the frightful offspring of scepticism, and the prolific parent of "false doctrine, heresy and schism." And yet declaim as they may, they are often compelled to admit that right, and to act upon it. The previous question concerning the divine authority of the Christian religion, cannot be entered into, or determined, without it. The very act of disputation involves the admission of the right, whether that disputation respect the doctrines or the government of the Church. The Apostles never denied

it. It was abused and perverted even under their personal instructions, as much as it has been since their writings have been the only guides of the Church. At that period, as we might expect where the right of individual judgment is admitted, while the exercise of that right belongs to erring and imperfect beings-there were occasional irregularities-" debates, envyings, wraths, strifes, backbitings, whisperings, swellings, tumults." (2 Cor. xii. 20.) Could the Council of Trent have drawn a more lively portraiture of its evils? But does the Apostle on this account tell the Corinthians, that henceforward, they must never think for themselves-that they must abandon the right of judgment—and submit with implicit deference to their uninspired teachers? He gives no such directions for healing the disorders of the Church! He asserts indeed his own Apostolic authority, but to no other, as an ultimate authority, do we find the slightest appeal. On the contrary, addressing these Corinthians, he says on another occasion-" Judge ye what I say !" (1 Cor. x. 15.) He exhorts the Thessalonians to "prove all things," or bring them to the test; (Tavтa dokιμáLETE. 1 Thess. v. 21.) and clearly (παντα δοκιμάζετε. asserts, not only the right, but the duty of individual inquiry. The last cited passage implies, the previous existence of a test or standard, known and acknowledged at that time; or otherwise, how could there be any proof or trial at all? It further implies, that the test was intelligible and accessible; and that no instances of erroneous construction in the use of it, could at all supersede the obligation to regard it, for the purposes for which it was designed. With this exhortation accords also that of St. John-" try the spirits, whether they be of God." (1 John iv. 1.) If there be any right, the principles of which

approve themselves to the unbiassed dictates of a reflecting mind-any right, the denial of which, would at once excite the suspicion of collusion and imposture any right, with which the operation of force and the authority of human enactments ought not to interfere, and for the best of all reasons, because they cannot in the nature of things produce conviction-it is the right of free inquiry in matters of religion. The genius of Christianity supports it. Nothing was Nothing was done in a corner" by its first advocates. They submitted all its principles to unfettered and universal investigation. They "commended themselves to every man's conscience in the sight of God."*

*The following remarkable passages, are taken from the "Homilies," of the eloquent Chrysostom, Bishop of Constantinople, towards the end of the fourth and the beginning of the fifth century. "All Christians ought to have recourse to the Scrip"tures. For at this time, since heresy has infected the Churches, "the divine Scriptures alone can afford a proof of genuine Chris"tianity, and a refuge to those who are desirous of arriving at "the true faith. Formerly it might have been ascertained by "various means, which was the true Church-but at present "there is no other method left to those who are willing to discover the true Church of Christ, but by the Scriptures alone. And why? Because heresy has all outward observances in "common with her. If a man therefore be desirous of knowing "the true Church, how will he be able to do it, amidst so great a "resemblance, but by the Scriptures alone? Wherefore, our "Lord foreseeing, that such a great confusion of things would "take place in the latter days, orders the Christians—to have recourse to nothing but the Scriptures." (Hom. 49. in Matt. c. 24.) Again (on 2nd. Corinth: Hom. 13.) he says, "Let us not "attend to the opinions of the many; but let us inquire into the things themselves. For it is absurd, while we will not trust "other people in pecuniary affairs, but chuse to reckon and cal"culate for ourselves, that in matters of fur greater consequence, "we should implicitly follow the opinions of others; especially as we possess the MOST EXACT AND PERFECT RULE AND "STANDARD, by which to regulate our several inquiries-I mean the regulations of THE DIVINE LAWS. Therefore I "could wish that all of you would neglect what this or that man "asserts for truth, and that you would investigate all these things "in the Scriptures."

"

16

Nor can it be proved, that any advantages result from denying the right of inquiry, and demanding this transfer of individual responsibility to an ecclesiastical convention. Unity and uniformity have been the idols set up in all ages, by the advocates of infallibility. They are confessedly desirable and measures of a conciliating and comprehensive nature, that might tend to bring into closer and more intimate association, “the sheep of Christ, which are scattered abroad," ought to be seriously investigated; and if accordant with the purity of Christian truth, should be universally adopted. But here the question on which the present argument depends, naturally suggests itself.-Is the Church of Rome the SOLE AND EXCLUSIVE JUDGE on this intricate point? Must the laws devised and enacted by the wisdom and authority of that Church, be received without inquiry-without hesitation? Its advocates say, they should—we ask, for what reasons; and on assuring them, when those reasons are stated, that they do not produce in our minds, any rational and satisfactory conviction, they then deny the right of investigation! We remind them of the perfection and sufficiency of the sacred oracles; and again ask in what part of those oracles it is recorded, that any combination of uninspired men, should be authorised in the name of Jesus Christ, to demand implicit, unhesitating and universal submission, in matters of faith and conscience? When such glaring inadequacy of proof must be obvious to every unbiassed inquirer, it is an admirable contrivance, to call in question the right of inquiry! The denial of that right, must naturally awaken the susdicion, that all rational modes of proof are wanting, or so desperate an expedient would not be adopted. Certainly, no method is so con