Bible. This is plain from its history. Its main substance was in use before the New Testament was formed. Peter's confession, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God,' had no such origin. It was produced from the living sense of Christ's presence itself. And so we may say, the whole creed, which lies involved in that confession, is derived through faith, out of the same living ground. It is, of course, in harmony with the Bible; for it has to do immediately with its central revelation, the mystery of the Word made Flesh. It comes not, however, circuitously, in the way of reflection and study, through its pages. The early church got it not from the Bible. Strange that there should be any confusion in regard to what is in itself so palpable and clear. The Bible is not the principle of Christianity; nor yet the rock on which the church is built. It never claims this character, and it can be no better than idolatry and superstition to worship it in any such view."* Yet you, Right Reverend Sir, gravely speak of "the Scriptural Creed," as if its very words were contained in the sacred volume.

In addition to the ancient symbols, you refer to the Thirty-nine Articles adopted by the English Convocation under Elizabeth, and by the Protestant Episcopal Convention in America in 1801, with some very serious modifications. Of

* Mercersburg Review, July, 1849, Article, The Apostles' Creed.

them you say: "There is not a single topic decided by the councils and the fathers, in the pure and primitive ages of the Church, which is not here distinctly set forth with the most admirable exactness and precision, leaving no room for heretical private judgment in any important point of Christian doctrine."* The first difficulty is, what can determine the individual member of your communion, to give the unqualified assent of his mind to the Articles themselves? Are they recommended to him by an authority which cannot err? Does he rely on the testimony and judgment of the English Parliament, or Convocation, or of the American Convention? If he must first satisfy himself, by personal examination, that the Articles express the doctrines of the early Church, the inquiry will be tedious, and the result doubtful. What must determine him to receive the decisions of the Church in those early ages with entire deference, if the Church at the present time has no claim on the unreserved assent of his mind? Truly, there is much room for private judgment on all those points, as long as an infallible authority is not claimed and exercised. Besides, few find the Articles themselves so clear and definite as you represent them, which is the cause of the existence of two great divisions among you, the High and Low Church divines, whose dif

* Vol. 1, p. 15.

ference of views regards points of great importance. The Articles are generally considered as directing the individual judgment, rather than determining it, which is impossible, for the want of adequate authority. They are not regarded by the very ministers who subscribe to them, as binding them to assent, but rather as points to be respected in their public teaching, and have been styled, not improperly, Articles of Peace. Paley observes: "They who contend that nothing less can justify subscription to the Thirtynine Articles, than the actual belief of each and every separate proposition contained in them, must suppose that the legislature expected the consent of ten thousand men, and that in perpetual succession, not to one controverted proposition, but to many hundreds. It is difficult to conceive how this could have been expected by any, who observed the incurable diversity of human opinion upon all subjects short of demonstration."* In order effectually to control Scriptural interpretation, they must be supported by some authority better than an English Act of Parliament, and there must be some tribunal to determine their meaning. The Church of England claims, indeed, "authority in controversies of faith," but she nullifies her claim, by avowing her liability to err in her decision. Thus the guidance on which you rely is unsatisfactory, and you are left, like other Protestants,

Philosophy, Book III. Chap. 22.

with the Bible alone, to interpret it as you judge proper.

The individual is placed above the Church in the very article in which her authority is affirmed: "yet it is not lawful for the Church to ordain anything that is contrary to God's word written; neither may it so expound one place of Scripture, that it be repugnant to another." This presumes that the Church is capable of abusing her authority, by commanding what is opposed to the Scripture, and by expounding the text so as to involve contradiction. The individual must necessarily judge for himself, whether she has in fact so erred. He must examine and compare the texts, in order to satisfy himself that she has not abused her authority.

You have no reason, then, to find fault with Dr. Milner, for saying that your rule is the Bible, as interpreted by each reader for himself, since you say the same in substance: "On this ground we stand, and we ask no other. The Scriptures as the Rule of Faith, according to the primitive Catholic interpretation, with the right of private judgment, in order to decide what that interpretation was."* I fancy I hear some citizen whose principles have been represented as inconsistent with law and order, inasmuch as he professes to respect the laws only as far as he understands them, without reference to the authority of the

* Vol. 1, p. 286.

legal tribunals.

He repels the imputation as

groundless, because he accepts them as they were expounded by the judges soon after their enactment; but he insists that he must be allowed to determine for himself what their decisions were, and how far they are applicable to his circumstances. By claiming for the individual the right to determine for himself, what was the primitive Catholic interpretation, you give him indirectly the right to determine the meaning of the sacred text itself, and thus fall back on the common ground of Protestants, the Bible as interpreted by each one's private judgment.

In truth you have no doctrinal tribunal which can exercise this authority, claimed in the Articles. In England, the whole Church authority is concentrated in the Queen and Privy Council, who seem disposed to leave questions open rather than to decide them, as was seen in the Gorham case regarding baptismal regeneration. In this country the General Convention is your highest tribunal, which, I presume, may at most censure some individual for teaching erroneous doctrines, contrary to the pledges given at his ordination. In such a case the symbols and Articles would naturally be referred to, and their obvious meaning insisted on; but as many controversies have been raised on them, no decision in any special case is likely to be given or to obtain weight so as to fix the meaning beyond dispute. You have then, practically, no rule of