ciples of reafon itself. What is contrary to the plain defign or declaration of the gospel, cannot be received by any one who believes the gofpel, because it deftroys the authority of the gofpel in which he believes." And what is contrary to the fundamental principles of the reformation, without which it could never have been at first, and now cannot confiftently be, defended, will not, cannot be received by any true Proteftant, because it deftroys his very title to that name, and in the very thing which, as a Proteftant, he receives *. . None therefore can have any right to impofe their particular fenfe of, or authoritatively explain thofe articles of faith and terms of falvation, which Chrift himself hath made. Our inquiries are to determine our affent to what appears truth, or to be founded upon rational and fcripture evidence. This is the Chriftian's rule, in oppofition to the receiving or admitting doctrines upon the foot of human authority; in which refpect we are to call no man mafter upon earth, fince he is our mafter, even Chrift. This will evidently appear, 1. From its being inconfiftent with the dignity of our Lord Jefus Chrift, as head of his church. As fuch he hath given us laws, and referved to himself a right of judging our behaviour under them. There is one lawgiver, who is able to fave or deftroy; who art thou that ufurpeft this authority, and judgest another? 2. It is deftructive to the nature of religion, as religion ought to be the refult of fuch conceptions as we are able to form of God, and his laws in our minds. An action indeed may look fpecious; but if it doth not flow from a real conviction of its excellence, if it be not governed by right motives, it lofes both the nature and reward of a religious action. All the expreffions of our piety, of our reverence, and gra Bishop Hoadley's Defence of his Sermon against the Cenfures of the Committee. See the Old Whig, or Confiftent Proteftant, in two volumes, published in 1735. VOL. I. f titude titude to God, unless they fpring from an inward fenfe of our obligation, could fignify nothing in a right eftimation. They could not amount to a reasonable fervice, because not directed by reason and understanding: to submit blind-fold therefore to the dictates of others, will not confift with the nature of religion. Under this direction it muft vary with cuftoms and climates, with prevailing factions, and other incidents of life, i. e. will be juft nothing befides a fashionable drefs, and an outward form. Neither can we well expect that a religion taken up in fuch a careless manner should be lafting, when it has no other foundation than that of human authority; it will be liable to be fhaken by every objection, and to be given up with as little reason as it was at firft received: every little difficulty thrown in the way will be apt to bias an indolent mind to refign it, and the apprehenfion of one error fhall be taken for a prefumption of more, till an indifference comes on to all religion. This will, I apprehend, be the cafe when a profeffion of religion is founded upon any thing but a full conviction of its truth and importance. When we have examined impartially, and embraced religion upon proper principles, we are most likely to remain ftedfast, and hold faft that which is good. 3. An abfolute fubmiffion of our understanding to the sense, which others put upon the words of Christ, is fuch a voluntary neglect of thofe powers and capacities, with which we are endowed, as muft incur fome degree of guilt to what purpofe have we understanding, reafon, and a capacity of diftinguishing truth from error, unless it be to direct our choice? Why fhould we be qualified for moral agency, if we are not allowed to exert it in the moft interefting affairs of life, viz, our religion? How much foever we may please men, by being fo obfequious and refigned, furely we cannot pleate God, who will expect us to be and do what he has fitted us for. The account we we must render at laft to our judge, will be a perfonal one; for every man muft give an account of himself to God: there is no pleafing God then by another man's faith and piety, no appearing at our last tribunal by our deputies, we must answer for ourselves, and confequently have a right to direct those measures we are fo ftrictly accountable for. It is an unalienable right, refulting from the very frame of our nature and religion. The apoftles, though they enjoyed extraordinary gifts, affumed no fuch power over the confciences of men; they left them to the free exercises of their own faculties, and commended the Bereans for fearching the fcriptures, to fee what foundation their doctrine had in it*. And St. Paul, in the cafe of fymbolizing with idolaters, appeals to the Corinthians themselves, as capable judges, of what (he faid) I fpeak as to wife men, judge ye what I fay ; and exprefsly blames the Coloffians, for being fubject to ordinances after the commandments and doctrines of men 1. The fame liberty they allowed to others, they claimed for themselves; they refufed to comply with the injunctions of the council, not to preach any more in the name of Jefus, and herein governed themselves by that important and immutable principle, that they ought to obey God rather than man. In this they went upon a principle, which wife men and philofophers have always acknowledged. Socrates declares to his judges, that if they would give him his life, on this condition, that he fhould teach philofophy no more, he would refuse it: "I love and honour you, O Athenians; but in this I chuse rather to obey God than you §." And Cicero, to the fame purpose, fays, when our friends expect from us what is not confiftent with honour and virtue, we should let them fee that we bear a greater reCol. ii. 20. 22. Acts xvii. 12. II. + 1 Cor. x. 15. Plat. Apol. Soc. p. 364 gard to religion than to friendship." It is an avowed maxim, amongst Proteftants efpecially, that a law if fuing from an inferior authority obliges not, when it clashes with a fuperior. This alone can justify a feparation from the established church, when it is done upon principles of better information. For fince there is a divine law, importing that every man is to take the best care he can of his own foul, and must give an account of himself to God; whoever is verily perfuaded that he best answers this end, by worshipping God in a Proteftant diffenting congregation, not only may, but is obliged to follow that courfe, which upon trial he finds moft for his fpiritual advantage. Again, this condemns those who make the civil law, or the law of the country where they live, the rule of their confcience in matters of right and wrong; for the thing to be confidered is not what the law of men permit; but what the law of God, natural or revealed, determines in any cafe *. So likewife we find that in lawful things St. Paul claimed a right to judge of their expediency in refpect to time, or the effect his conduct might have upon others: wherein he declares he would fubmit himself to the direction and judgment of no man but himself; all things are lawful but one, but all things are not expedient; all things are lawful for me, but I will not be brought under the power of any . This was the principle he went upon both †. with regard to himfelf and others; let every man be fully perfuaded in his own mind ‡. Thus the apoftles confidered the religion of Jefus, as the cause of God and of truth, that needed no colouring to heighten its beauty, no mean arts and disguise to fupport its influence; they went forth to propagate the gospel, armed with truth, integrity and patience; and preached the gospel with fuch an open freedom, as fhewed they feared no inquiry and examination, that was fair and * Grove's Syftem, vol. II. p. 112. Rom. xiv. 5. + 1 Cor. vi. 12. impartial; impartial; and ever fince we see that christianity hath ftood the teft, and preferved its credit against all the attempts of art and violence. Again, an implicit regard to the interpretations and dictates of others is not confiftent with that veneration and efteem we ought to have for the holy fcriptures. Nothing appears more evident than that they were defigned for common ufe and inftruction. 1 his particularity appears from their being written in their then vulgar tongue; from their addrefs to the common people, and the express acknowledgment of the perfons concerned in them. With refpect to the Old Teftament, our Saviour encouraged the reading of them, and imputed the errors of the Sadducees about the refurrection to their ignorance of the fcriptures*. St. Paul afferts, that what were written aforetime were written for our learning t. With refpect to the New Testament, St. John declares, that he wrote his gofpel, that we might believe that Jefus is the Chrift; St. Luke his for the inftruction of Theophilus §. St. Paul inscribes his epiftles to whole churches, and directs that his epiftles be read to all the brethren; and injoins the Coloffians, that the epiftles he wrote to them and the Laodiceans might be communicated to one another for their mutual comfort : and St. Peter informs us, that his defign in writing his epiftles was to ftir up the minds of Chriftians, by way of remembrance, that they might be mindful of the words which were spoken before by the holy prophets, and of the commandment of us the apostles of the Lord and Saviour **. And it is evident from the epiftles themselves, that they contain fuch doctrines as are expressly mentioned in the gofpels, or fairly confiftent with them, i e. fuch as we might expect from those who were defigned by our Saviour to give a fuller account of his religion. From hence it appears, that the fcriptures were defign↑ John, xx. 31. 2 Peter, iii. 12. * Mat. xxii. 29. Luke i. 34. + Rom. xv. 4. || 1 Thef. v. 17.. f 3 ** ed |