in general, rejected the maxim that the church,' (however determined,) is the decisive authority for religious truth; and they laid little or no stress on the doctrines of tradition and Apostolic succession as guides in the interpretation of Scripture. For the most part, the Protestant churches framed certain authoritative summaries of their faith, (such as the Augsburg Confession, the Thirty-nine Articles, &c. ;) but they founded the authority of their creeds, and the obligation of Christians to adopt them, not on the teaching of their church, and its possession of an authentic tradition and an authoritative voice, but on their accordance with Scripture.1

The creeds of all the reformed churches are particularly explicit on this point, which was, indeed, a fundamental and characteristic doctrine of Protestantism. Instead, like the Church of Rome, of recognising a compound rule of faith, which comprehended both Scripture and oral tradition, and placed the two upon an equal footing, the Protestant churches, however they might differ in other respects, agreed in establishing a simple rule of faith, consisting exclusively of Scripture. This principle is expressed in the clearest terms in the Articles of the Church of England, and, indeed, pervades their whole substance. Art. VI. states that holy Scripture containeth all things necessary to salvation; so that whatsoever is not read therein, nor may be proved thereby, is not to be required of any man, that it should be believed as an article of faith, or to be thought requisite or necessary to salvation.' 2 Art. VIII. declares that the three creeds -the Nicene, Athanasian, and Apostles' creed-'ought thoroughly to be received and believed,' not because they were received by the early church, and founded upon an authoritative tradition, but because they may be proved by most certain warrants of Scripture.' So, again, Art. XX. lays it down that the church cannot ordain or decree anything contrary to holy writ, or enforce any

6

1 With respect to the doctrines of the early reformers on Scripture and tradition, and their condemnation by the Council of Trent, see Sarpi, Hist. du Concile de Trente, 1. II. c. 43–6, 56, trad. de Courayer. Sarpi states that one of the members of the council urged their laying down, 'that every Christian is bound to believe in the Church;' but that this proposition was unanimously rejected, partly on the ground that the heretics would pretend to be the true church, to which so much authority was given, c. 45. Compare Möhler, Symbolik, § 44–51; Bretschneider, Dogmatik, vol. I. § 33; Walter, Kirchenrecht, § 35.

2 See Burnet's commentary on this article, as to the antithesis between the doctrines of the church of Rome and that of England on this head. A similar view is taken by Bishop Tomline on the same article.

thing beside the same, to be believed for necessity of salvation; and Art. XXI. decides, that things ordained by General Councils as necessary to salvation have neither strength nor authority, unless it may be declared that they be taken out of holy Scripture.' Again, Art. XXXIV. says that it is not necessary that traditions and ceremonies be in all places one, or utterly like, for at all times they have been diverse, and may be changed according to the diversity of countries and men's manners, so that nothing be ordained against God's word.' In all these passages, the reference to Scripture as the paramount and exclusive standard of faith is manifest.

The distinctive theories of the Church of Rome and of the Protestant churches on this subject, may be stated thus:-

According to the Church of Rome, there are certain marks by which the one true Christian church can be recognised.

Those marks exist in the Church of Rome, and in no other. The true and genuine doctrines have been preserved by an uninterrupted tradition in the true church.

Therefore, whatever the Church of Rome teaches is true, and her authority is a legitimate ground of belief in things spiritual. All Christians who reject her authority in matters of faith are heretics, and without the pale of the church.

On the other hand, the Protestant churches hold that the Scriptures of the Old and New Testament contain everything which goes to make up Christianity, and that they are the exclusive and ultimate rule of faith. They deny the existence of any uninterrupted and exclusive transmission of true doctrine in any church since the time of the Apostles. Each Protestant church lays down certain doctrines, which it considers to constitute, in the aggregate, the true exposition of the Christian religion; but it claims Divine authority to this body of doctrines, simply on the ground that they are all expressly contained in Scripture, or can be inferred from it by a legitimate process of deduction.

It was on account of this exclusive reference to Scripture, that the Protestant divines laid more stress on the inspiration of the holy writings than the theologians of the Church of Rome; and that the Protestants were accused of bibliolatry.

Owing to this deposition of church authority, and to the

* Commenting on this article, Burnet says of the early councils- We reverence those councils for the sake of their doctrine, but do not believe the doctrine for the authority of the councils.'

F

1

adoption of the maxim that the Bible only is the religion of Protestants,' it has been commonly asserted that the reformed churches have admitted the right of private judgment in religious

matters.

Now, in a certain sense, every church which possesses a fixed written confession of faith predetermines the most important articles of Christian belief, and therefore can hardly be said to leave a free scope to private judgment.2 But the reformed churches agree in making the Scriptures the exclusive canon of religious faith; they admit that their creed is only entitled to acceptance so far as it is supported by Scripture; and they do not assume that their church, in its collective capacity, is alone competent to decide on the correct interpretation of the Divine records. In this sense, therefore, the reformed churches admit the right of private judgment. They do not claim for the decrees of any church an authority independent of, or extraneous to, Scripture.

3

It has been stated by an eminent text writer, that, when the two forms of belief are reduced to their elements, Catholicism is the complete recognition of the authority of the church; while Protestantism is the negation of that authority, and the substitution of the private judgment of each individual. But although a Protestant denies the authority of the Church of Rome, he recognises the authority of his own Church. The difference properly does not consist in the recognition of the principle of authority by one party, and the rejection of that principle by the other, but in the recognition of different authorities.

§ 14. On looking back to what has been said, it will be seen that no one church can justly make any claim to authority in matters of religious belief, upon the grounds on which opinions in matters of science acquire authority. There is no consent of competent judges over the civilised world. Inconsistent and opposite forms of Christianity continue to exist side by side. There is not

1 Chillingworth, Religion of Protestants, ch. 6, § 56, (vol. ii. p. 450.)

2 The Church of England declares that 'they are to be accursed that presume to say that every man shall be saved by the law or sect which he professeth, so that he be diligent to frame his life according to that law and the light of nature,' (Art. XVIII.) This article, however, appears from its sequel to refer to heathens, or others not professing Christianity, and to be intended to exclude from salvation only those who are not Christians. It does not affect those who claim to be Christians, though they may not be members of the Church of England. As to the sense in which Protestantism involved the principle of private judgment, see tho remarks of Mr. Hallam, Literature of Europe, vol. i. ch. 6, § 33.

3 See Klee, Kath. Dogm, vol. i. p. 312.

any general agreement among divines of different churches, as there is among men of science as to their respective subjects in different countries; and scarcely even any tendency to such an agreement. Attempts at mutual conversion on a large scale entirely fail; while those which are limited in their numbers give rise to questions as to the motives of the converts, and add but little strength to the church which receives them.2 Even a government cannot safely adopt any authority in ecclesiastical matters, or assume the exclusive truth of any one form of Christianity. It must look mainly to the numbers of each religious persuasion, in deciding the question of endowments for religious and educational purposes; and to the religion of parents in establishing the rules for determining the creed in which children, incapable of judging for themselves, are to be brought up.3

The Church of Rome makes boldly the claim of authority for its own decisions. But there is a large, and that not the least enlightened and intelligent, portion of the Christian world which peremptorily denies this claim. Moreover, even among its own members, there is great difference of opinion as to the organs of that authority. The ultramontane doctrines differ on this head from those of some of the national churches. Decisions, which some classes of Roman-catholics consider as authoritative, others refuse to admit as genuine expressions of the voice of the church.

Even if it is conceded that the teaching of the church carries with it an authority binding upon the consciences of all the faithful, yet there is no general agreement as to the extent of the church, or the communion signified by this term. The member of the Church of Rome limits the acceptation of church to his

1 Compare Note C. at the end of the chapter.

2 Lord Clarendon, in his Essay Against the Multiplying Controversies, remarks upon the fact, 'that all the conferences held, and all the books written, between those of the Roman and those of the reformed religion, for the space of above 150 years, by men of unquestionable knowledge and virtue, should not work upon any one man, for ought appears, to change the opinion he brought with him; for of those who run from one communion to another, they are such who do not pretend to judge of arguments, or such who seldom give an account of their true inducements,' &c., p. 241, ed. fol. And in his History of the Rebellion, he says- Our observation and experience can give us few examples of men who have changed their religion, and not fallen into some jealousy and distrust, or disreputation, even with those with whom they side, that have made their future life less pleasant and delightsome; which, it may be, happens only because we have rare instances of men of extraordinary parts, or great minds, who have entertained those conversions,' vol. iv. p. 317, ed. 12mo.

3 On this subject, some further remarks are made in Chapter IX.

own church; Protestants include under it different ecclesiastical communities, agreeing only in the profession of the Christian faith, or agreeing in certain fundamental tenets, such as the Athanasian doctrine of the Trinity—or in a certain form of church government, such as episcopacy. Even as to the term 'Catholic church,' there is no general agreement in Christendom. The historical usage limits this term to the Church of Rome, which never was a universal church, in the sense of its including, de facto, all Christians; but was universal, or Catholic, only in the sense of its claiming to be orthodox, and therefore to include, de jure, all Christendom, and also as not being a merely national church, but comprehending several nations and countries. Protestant divines in general, however, extend the term Catholic church either to all Christendom,' or they limit it by some condition, as to which there is a variety of opinion. The Catholic church,' or 'Catholic consent' of the modern Oxford school, is a perfectly arbitrary standard, which can satisfy no marked denomination of Christians. Of what avail is it to imagine an invisible ideal church, formed of such heterogeneous and mutually repelling bodies, as the Church of Rome, the Greek Church, and the Church of England? What agreement exists, or can exist, between them, and how can it be defined or expressed? The Church of Rome, by its authentic organs, proscribes the Church of England as heretical, and will hold no communion or church-membership with it. The Church of England lays it down, in an equally authentic manner, that the Church of Rome has erred in matters both of faith and discipline; and authoritative divines of the Anglican Church teach that the Church of Rome is a church without a religion. Under these circumstances, no practical solution of sectarian differences can be derived by a reference to 'Catholic consent,' so determined.

It follows that no person can accept the doctrines of the Church of Rome, upon the mere authority of the rulers and doctors of that church, with the same well-founded security against error which he possesses for his belief in adopting the established truths of astronomy or mechanics, upon the mere credit of mathematicians and men of science.

As to the claim of the reformed churches to be members of the Catholic church, and the declarations on the subject in their confessions, see Klee, Kathol. Dogmatik, vol. i. p. 98. See Bretschneider, Glaubenslehre, § 55, for the views of the modern German Protestants on the meaning of 'Catholic church.' As to Jurieu's doctrine, see Palmer, vol. i. p. 128.