result of their researches in the Holy Scripture. Yet they did find it, and find it moreover at a time when the Church of Rome had lost it. And the reason, why they found it, was that they discarded Tradition as a Rule of Faith, and interpreted Scripture by the aid of reason and learning. If the Romanist objects, that our Reformers did not find true religion, his objection is foreign to the purpose. For in the

argument which is now before us, we are concerned only with the principles, on which the researches of our Reformers were conducted. Should it be further objected, that if our Reformers found true religion in the Bible alone, yet in our present endeavours to find it we employ the Liturgy and Articles, I would answer, in the first place, that there is no necessity for our finding again, what has been found already. In the second place I would answer, that though there is no need of finding what has been found already, it is quite consistent with the principles of our Church, that they, whose literary attainments qualify them for the undertaking, should compare those Articles of Faith with the source, from which they were drawn, and see, that they are justly derived from Scripture. Thirdly, I would answer, that it is perfectly consistent both with the principles and the practice of our Reformers, who provided us with the Liturgy and Articles, to accompany the Bible with them, not as authorities for the proof of its Doctrines, but as useful and important Expositions of it; as Expositions, which may serve to guard the illiterate and unwary reader, who has a Bible without note or comment, from being seduced by those ignorant, and self-sufficient

expounders of Scripture, with which the country now swarms. But whether these, or any other Expositions of Scripture be employed by the Church of England, they have no resemblance whatever to the Expositions, which the Church of Rome derives from its Tradition. In vain therefore do our adversaries apply this appellation to the Liturgy and Articles of our Church. In vain do they pretend, that unless the Bible is left to be its own interpreter, or unless the Bible be read without note or comment, there is a departure from Protestantism, and an approximation to the Church of Rome. That the Bible can be understood without comments and other helps, is an assertion, which none but a fanatic would make. But if the means, which are employed to discover the sense of Scripture, have no resemblance in themselves, we cannot create a resemblance by the mere imposition of a name. If a name, without regard to its meaning, were permitted to decide, we could as easily prove, that the Romish Church was a Jewish Church, as the Romanists can prove, that our Church is a Romish Church. For the Jews, acknowledge the authority of Tradition, as well as the authority of Scripture 27.

27 The confusion, which has lately taken place on the subjects of Scripture and Tradition, may be chiefly ascribed to the want of clear definitions: for no man can write perspicuously on a subject, unless he has perspicuously defined it. When Bellar mine defines Scripture and Tradition by calling the former Verbum Dei Scriptum, and by calling the latter Verbum Dei non Scriptum, he shews that he himself understands the subject, and he makes it understood by his readers. But neither an author, nor his readers, will receive much light from arguments about Tradition,

Tradition, if no better deânition be given of it, than that, which is given by Mr. Gandolphy at p. 8, of his second Letter, namely, "the Word unwritten in the Scriptures." Whoever sets out with such a definition, as this, will not only be in the dark, as to what he himself intends to prove, but, having to do with a term, which is applicable to an infinity of subjects, must (for the very reason, that the connexion between the term and the real subject of inquiry is not distinctly marked) connect it with subjects, which are foreign to the inquiry. No author, whether Romanist, or Protestant, should write about Scripture and Tra dition, till he has studied the works of Bellarmine,

CHAP. VIII.

DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE CHURCHES OF ENG. LAND AND ROME IN THE EXERCISE OF CHURCHAUTHORITY.—THE OBJECTIONS TO THE FIRST SENTENCE OF OUR TWENTIETH ARTICLE STATED, `AND EXAMINED; ESPECIALLY IN REFERENCE TO THE RIGHT OF PRIVATE JUDGMENT IN MATTERS OF FAITH.- -PROOF, THAT THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND CARRIES ITS AUTHORITY NO FURTHER, THAN IS ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY FOR ITS OWN PRESERVATION; AND MOREOVER, THAT THIS AU THORITY IS EXERCISED ON THE SAME PRINCIPLE, AND CARRIED ONLY TO THE SAME EXTENT, AS BY PROTESTANTS IN GENERAL, THE DISSENTERS THEMSELVES NOT EXCEPTED,

THE HE subjects of Scripture and Tradition, having been fully examined in regard both to causes and consequences, we are now led to an inquiry of no less moment, than any of the preceding, especially when considered in its practical application, namely, the exercise of Church-authority. That the Churches of England and Rome are materially different also on this subject is a proposition, which may appear more difficult to be established, than their difference in Scripture and Tradition, in Doctrines and Ceremonies. Indeed the exercise of Church-authority is a subject, on which our adversaries have more closely pressed us, than on any other.

It has been frequently repeated, and is repeated to this very day, that, while the Church of Rome on the one hand, and Protestant Dissenters on the other, are true to the principles, which they profess on the subject of spiritual jurisdiction, the Church of England, placed as it were in the middle between the two parties, preserves the consistency of neither. When the Church of Rome exerts authority over the conscience of man, and requires implicit obedience to its decisions in matters of faith, its principles and its practice are consistent. For it does not even pretend to allow the right of private judgment in religious concerns. On the other hand it is said, the Protestant Dissenters, true to the principles, which induced our ancestors to separate from the Church of Rome, not only contend, that all men have a right to exercise their own judgment in controversies of faith, but exemplify also the maxim by their general practice. The Church of England alone therefore is charged with inconsistency. It is charged with professing indeed the Christian liberty restored by the Reformation, but with practising the spiritual tyranny exercised by the Church of Rome. Our twentieth Article is said to be decisive on this subject. In vain (say our adversaries) do the ministers of the established Church acknowledge the Protestant principle, that in the momentous concerns of future happiness or misery, it is the inalienable right of man to think and determine for himself. Our twentieth Article, they say, condemns us: for that Article declares, that the Church hath authority in controversies even of faith.