reafon at all. He who cannot fee the difference between these two cafes, muft, it is to be feared, be in a condition fomewhat fimilar to that in which the Jews were, when their invincible prejudices would not suffer them to acknowledge our SAVIOUR's character; they had eyes to fee, but would not fee. For in the one cafe, we behold the deliberate act of an independent branch of the church of CHRIST, vindicating its own rights against the ufurped tyranny of another branch of the fame church, and breaking off communion with it, for the fake of preferving the purity of its own worship; in the other, we see the act of the individual Christian, setting up his own way of thinking as his definitive standard of judgment in religious matters; a mode of proceeding abfolutely incompatible with the existence of the church as a fociety; and casting himself out of her communion, for the fake of gratifying fome private prejudice or opinion.

To us these two cafes appear widely different; but not more fo, I believe, than they would have done to thofe original foreign reformers,* who, on their firft withdrawing from a corrupt church, la

* CALVIN and BEZA in particular.

mented the neceffity they were under, of feparating from the established government of the church of CHRIST; and thought that no curfe could be too bad for those who separated from it, when in a reformed ftate. Their fubfequent change of fentiment upon this fubject, in conformity to times and circumstances, does fo little credit either to the men or their caufe, that we are glad to pafs it by in filence.

Ever fince the æra of the Reformation, the church of England has been confidered to be the firmest bulwark of Proteftantifm. So far as the Diffenter agrees with her, in protesting against the errors of the Romish church; fo far he may be faid to be at unity with her: but when that right, which justifies the Diffenter, in common with the church of England, in feparating from a corrupt branch of the Christian church, is extended to justify his feparation from a branch of the church, confeffedly not in the fame ftate of corruption, and of whose members no unlawful terms of communion are required; and to authorife his fetting up a church of his own, independent of epifcopal government; the Diffenter quits the original ground of proteftantifm, and places himfelf

upon that of fchifin; and in fuch case he be comes a fchifmatic grafted upon a proteftant.

Freedom of inquiry into the grounds of religion is readily acknowledged to be the distinguishing principle of the proteftant cause. But this principle, if not exercised under proper restraint, will destroy the cause it is defigned to ferve. That law must be useless, from which every man has a plea of private exemption lodged in his own breast. And all conftituted authority in the church must be annihilated, if the right of private judgment in religious matters, in the extent to which it is carried by fome people, is to be admitted.

Our SAVIOUR We find giving direction in a particular cafe, for an appeal to the judgment of the church; from whence we are obviously led to conclude, that it was his defign that a certain degree of refpect fhould be paid to its decifions. Matt. xviii. 17. The church, we are moreover told by the Apostle, is "the pillar and ground of the truth." I Tim. iii. 15. By which we understand, that the revelation of the Gospel is a facred depofit, which CHRIST has left with his church, to the end that it might be propagated and supported in the world by that spirit and authority, which were committed to its minifters for that purpose. Therefore the bishops, who are thofe fpiritual fathers, to whofe care CHRIST

P

has committed his church upon earth, are called upon by the Apostle, not only " to fpeak and exhort, but also to rebuke with all authority, and to let no man defpife them."

Where authority is committed, it is certainly with the intent that, fo far as the exercise of this authority properly extends, it ought to be obeyed. In the cafe before us, then, we do not hesitate to say, that in proportion as the authority of the church is difregarded, the pillar of truth is fhaken, and the cause of Christianity fuffers.

In confequence, indeed, of the abufe that has been made of the fpiritual authority, many have thought it not poffible to be too much upon their guard against it. To fteer clear, therefore, of the impofitions of the Romish priesthood, they have hastily determined to pay no attention to that facred office at all. But this, furely, is to correct one error by running into its oppofite; by exchanging a blind credulity for a contemptuous difregard for a Divine inftitution.

Without encroaching, then, upon the right of private judgment, which, to a certain degree is acknowledged, we may venture to fay in support of ecclefiaftical authority, that if CHRIST hath appointed certain perfons in his church, distinguished by their

ftation and office to be teachers and guides, it is the duty of the members of that church to be taught and guided by them, fo far as their teaching and gui dance conform to the revelation which they have in commiffion to publish. When the teaching or direction of these appointed guides appears, not in the mere private opinion of the party, but upon evident and substantial reasons, to be contrary to the revealed will of God, they can no longer be a proper rule of duty; in fuch case the member of the church exercifes the right of private judgment. But it must be remembered, at the fame time, that though the private Christian be justified in the fight of God for withholding active obedience from any rule or practice, which in his confcience are inconfiftent with the laws of CHRIST, for he is to obey GOD rather than man; yet if in this cafe, instead of patiently fubmitting to the penalties denounced against his disobedience, he openly refift the authority of his appointed governors, by a conduct in direct oppofition to their injunctions; he thereby renders himself accountable to God for rebellion against the established government of his church.

Upon this fubject, then, we make the revealed will of God the fole standard of judgment, and call