The leading principles upon which this position rests you will not deny. We know that you acknowledge the scriptures alone to be of divine authority, and we cannot doubt that you admit also the right of private judgment in the interpretation of them; how then will you persist in maintaining that a christian church has authority to require, as a necessary condition of communion, subscription or assent to human articles of faith, fixing that interpretation in a certain sense? Some further views of the inconsistency of such a practice with such principles may be presented to you from the writings of several of our old standard American divines, whom we have not had opportunity before of introducing to your notice.

The learned author of the New England Chronology, who was pastor of the Old South Church in Boston, bears the following testimony against this practice: "Is Christ so earnestly desirous of his people's unity? How lamentable is it, that any should presume to prevent the accomplishment of this desire, by adding terms of such a union as Christ himself has not required! What an awful opposition to this desire are they engaged in, who prevent this unity by imposing on the conscience things which, the imposers own, Christ has not appointed; and so urge his people to this hard necessity, either to sin against their light, or else to separate from their imposing brethren! And how opposite both to christian charity and union is it, for the imposers to make themselves the judges of the hearts of those who differ from them, and engross the sacred name of conscience to themselves, by asserting that the dissent of others is from humour only, and not from conscience!"*

Dr. Mayhew, the great advocate of the American churches, in the episcopal controversy of the last century, was an unwearied defender of religious freedom and the rights of conscience. "If it be asked," he says, "who these spiritual invaders are, it may be answered, all in general who set themselves up to judge for their neighbors; all who are for imposing their opinions upon others; all who in any way distress and afflict such as differ from

* Prince's Sermon after the death of Cotton Mather, 1732.

them in their religious sentiments; all who make use of any other weapons besides those of reason and argument, in order to demolish error and propagate truth. If a man has a right to judge for himself, certainly no other has a right to judge for him; and to attempt it is to strike at the most valuable interest of a man considered as a reasonable creature."

After mentioning the more violent ways of invading this right, he proceeds: "Another practice is that of creed-making, setting up human tests of orthodoxy, instead of the infallible word of God; and making other terms of christian communion than those explicitly pointed out in the gospel. For any man, or any set of men whatever to do this, is plainly to arrogate to themselves the right of judging for their neighbors; and to deter people, as far as they are able, from seeing with their own eyes, and judging even of themselves what is right."

"The divisions and contentions that have hitherto happened, and still subsist in the christian church, are all, in a manner, owing to the unchristian temper and conduct of those who could not content themselves with scripture orthodoxy, with the simple and spiritual worship of the Father, enjoined by our saviour, and with the platform of church discipline contained in the New Testament; but must go to coining new articles of faith, new modes and rites of worship, making new canons, and prescribing new rules for the regulation of the church."*

Dr. Tucker, also distinguished in his day by talents, piety, and zeal for christian liberty, says: "Can protestants act a consistent part, or be likely to live together in peace and love, on any other foundation but this? That they all acknowledge the sacred scriptures to be the only perfect rule of faith, and the test by which all doctrines are to be tried; that as every man must believe for himself, so every man has a right to see and understand for himself; to judge of the sense of scripture, and to try all doctrines by that rule: And therefore, that no man, or body of men, since the days of inspiration, can have any authority to

* Sermons on the Right and Duty of Private Judgment.

K

fix the sense of scripture for others, and require their consent thereto."

"In this, at least, let us have one faith and one practice, that we believe the bible to be the only standard of religious truth, and make it the measure of a good heart, and of a good life.— We might then hope to see some happy revival of primitive christianity; the gospel in its first glory, and the churches at peace."

Dr. Stiles, late president of Yale College, as decidedly orthodox as he was truly liberal in his sentiments, raised his voice against all restrictions upon conscience. "It is indeed a little unhappy," he says, " that, like others in the christian world, some of us are fond of substituting human interpretations given by authority of councils and learned men, exacting that the sacred scriptures be understood according to senses fitted and defined in human tests, which all acknowledge to be fallible. But it is to be hoped, that we shall stand fast in the liberty wherewith the gospel has made us free. There ought to be no restrictions on the conscience of an honest and sober believer of revelation. The right of conscience and private judgment is unalienable.”

"I am satisfied we shall err less if we make the scriptures the only rule of faith, than if we depart from this, and substitute another; or as many do, who say they believe the scriptures the only rule, and yet in all their judgments on scripture, measure that only rule by another rule. Nor do substituted rules answer the purpose of detecting heretics at all better than the primary rule, since in experience it is found none more freely subscribe and swear to human tests than deists, skeptics, and the most debauched. If God's inclosure will not keep out the erroneous, can it be expected that ours will? The universal pretext is a preservation against heresy. But it is to be remarked, that human tests make more heretics than the word of God; all that one determines to be heresy, is not heresy by the scriptures. A man may be a very great heretic according to the one, and an

* Sermon at Ordination of Moody, 1765.

excellent christian according to the other, at the same time. Saint Paul was one of the greatest heretics, and even gloried in his heresy, and yet was one of the best of christians."

"Our churches, in a distinguished sense from almost all the protestant world, are founded on the bible. Our worthy and venerable ancestors did not, like other protestant patrons, form a system of what they thought and judged the true sense of revelation, and establish this for the truth: No; it was enough for them, that the bible was the inspired rule, and this they made the only rule."*

To the testimony of these divines you will allow us to add one more, that of the immortal William Penn, whose 'Address to Protestants' is well worthy of your attention. A single passage only can be given here. "It is strange," he says, "that God and Christ should be wanting to express or discover their own mind; or that the words used by the holy ghost should have that shortness, ambiguity or obliquity in them, that our frail capacities should be needed to make them more easy, proper, and intelligible. But that we should scarcely deliver any one article of faith in scripture terms, and yet make such acts the rule and bond of christian communion, is, in my judgment, an offence heinous against God and holy scripture, and very injurious to christian charity and fellowship. Who can express any man's mind so fully as himself? And shall we allow that liberty to ourselves, and deny it to God?-I must say it is preposterous, and a contradiction, that those who desire to deliver their faith of truth in the language of truth, should not be reputed true believers, nor their faith admitted."

Such is the united voice, which comes to you from the departed worthies of the church, who in different ages and nations have been among the ablest expounders and brightest ornaments of christianity. It is full, clear, distinct, and harmonious. Will you not regard it, so far, at least, as to be persuaded to make a faithful and conscientious inquiry into the subject, which they so earnestly recommend to your attention? Can you in justice

* Convention Sermon, 1760.

to them or yourselves do less than this? Would not such an inquiry enable you more justly to appreciate their views and principles, if you should not be led to adopt them; and would it not add to your knowledge and expand your charity, even should it fail to enlighten your faith? Is it possible, that proofs and considerations, which carried the fullest conviction to the minds of men, who devoted the highest gifts of intellect and learning to the cause of truth and piety, should bring no light to your minds engaged in the same holy cause? No, surely. You could not fail to see the infinite difference between the word of God and the word of man; the inspired scriptures and mere human creeds; and to acknowledge that, while all are bound by the one, none are obliged to regard the other. You would be brought to question, at least, the right of a christian church to add to the bible any articles of man's devising, as a surer test of revealed truth; and, whatever might continue to be your own usage as to such additional tests, you would not condemn the established practice of this church in relation to them, nor consider it as affording any evidence, that we reject the fundamental doctrines of christianity.

You will now permit us to call your attention to the principle, which you seem to assume, upon the supposition that we reject certain doctrines which you receive as fundamental. As we understand your meaning, it is because you suppose that we reject such doctrines, that you refuse to recognize us as a christian church, and charge us with "a dereliction from the great doctrines of christianity." If so, do you not assume the judgment seat, and make your own opinions the standard for determining the christian faith and character of others? And what is the spirit of such a proceeding? Is it not of the very essence of popery? Would it not be so indeed, if, instead of mere supposition, you had perfect evidence of the fact; if you had specified all the doctrines which your church receives as fundamental, and had clearly shown that this church rejects them? Why, even in that case, should your judgment, any more than ours, be the standard of truth in fundamentals; unless, like the infallible church, you cannot err; and, like that too, claim to hold the