"Why even of yourselves judge ye not what is right ?-Search the scriptures.-Prove all things; hold fast that which is good.-I speak as to wise men, judge ye what I say.-Be always ready to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you, with meekness and fear.-Judge not.-Condemn not. One is your master even Christ, and all ye are brethren.Who art thou that judgest another's servant? Before his own master he standeth or falleth.-Why dost thou judge thy brother? Why dost thou set at naught thy brother? For we shall all stand before the judgment seat of Christ. Let us not therefore judge one another any more; but judge this rather, that no man put a stumbling block or an occasion to fall in his brother's way."

These directions of our saviour and his apostles show the spirit which breathes throughout the gospel. On what account were the Bereans called more noble than some others? Was it because they implicitly received the doctrines taught even by inspired apostles? No. It was for searching the scriptures daily, to see for themselves whether those things were so. What was

the conduct of St. Paul on the occasion of giving the directions: just referred to, when disputes and divisions arose between the Jewish and Gentile christians at Rome about the obligation of the Mosaic ritual? Did he peremptorily require those whom he knew to be in the wrong to renounce their error, and adopt his opinion, or that of their better informed brethren, in order to be. entitled to their communion and fellowship? Far from it. He presses upon all equally the duty of mutual forbearance and charity; and enjoins the same rule upon both parties, grounding it on the perfect right which all possessed, to inquire and judge for themselves on the subject. "Let every man," says he," be fully persuaded in his own mind.". That is, in the language of a learned expositor of this rule, "let every man enjoy the freedom of following the light of his conscience, and let no christians carry their zeal for agreement so far as to break in upon our title to God's favor, which is acting sincerely according to the inward conviction of our own minds."*

* Abernethy.

"How strong a text this is," says Dr. Doddridge, " for the right of private judgment.-Let all the different sects and parties of christians," adds he, "study to imbibe more of the equitable and lovely temper which the apostle here expresses in so genuine a manner. The divisions of the church are not to be healed by imposing our own sentiments, phrases, and forms, and censuring and harassing those who will not acquiesce in them. Such a temper will only engender strife, and mutual provocation will produce mutual increasing resentment. Let us receive our weaker brethren with tenderness and respect; not despising those who scruple what we practise, nor judging those who practise what we scruple. God may receive the one and the other; yea, the different practices of both may proceed from the same general principles, a desire to please him, and to approve ourselves in his sight.-Let us not add to all the offences, which may justly cause us to tremble before his tribunal, the criminal arrogance of usurping the place and prerogative of our judge,”*

"The general principles of morality explained in this admirable discourse of the apostle," says Dr. Macknight, " are of unalterable obligation, and may be applied with great advantage for preventing us both from lording it over the consciences of our brethren, and from submitting to their unrighteous impositions in matters of religion. For what can be more useful to christians in every age, than to be assured by an inspired apostle that Christ is the only Lord of the consciences of his servants, and the judge of their hearts? That he has not delegated this great prerogative to any man or body of men whatever: That to him alone, and not to one another, they are accountable for their religious opinions and actions: That in all cases where difference of opinion in religious matters takes place, every man should guide himself by his own persuasion, and not by the opinion of others: That we ought charitably to believe concerning others, that both in opinion and practice they act as conscientiously as we do; and therefore, instead of hating them, either for their opinions, or for their mode of worshipping God, we ought to live

*Family Expositor, v. 4. p. 173.

in peace and friendship with them, notwithstanding these differences."*

Together with these illustrations of the rule and example left us by the great apostle, you will read with interest some eloquent remarks of the late Robert Hall upon our saviour's manner of treating his disciples. In enforcing his position, that no church has a right to establish terms of communion, which are not terms of salvation," he observes: "A tender consideration of human imperfections is not merely the dictate of revelation, but the law of nature, exemplified in the most striking manner, in the conduct of him whom we all profess to follow. How wide the interval which separated his religious knowledge and attainments from that of his disciples; he, the fountain of illumination, they encompassed with infirmities. But did he recede from them on that account? No; he drew the bond of union. closer, imparted successive streams of effulgence, till he incorporated his spirit with theirs, and elevated them into a nearer resemblance to himself. In imitating by our conduct towards our mistaken brethren this great exemplar, we cannot err. By walking together with them as far as we agree, our agreement will extend, our differences lessen, and love, which rejoiceth in the truth, will gradually open our hearts to higher and nobler inspirations."+

We cannot forbear to add, in this place, the strong testimony which this admired author bears against any departure from the scriptural terms of communion. In the preface to his work on this subject, he states, that the "practice of incorporating private opinions and human inventions with the constitutions of a church, and with the terms of communion, has long appeared to him untenable in its principle, and pernicious in its effects. There is no position in the whole compass of theology, of the truth of which he feels a stronger persuasion, than that no man, or set of men, are entitled to prescribe as an indispensable condition of communion, what the New Testament has not enjoined as a condition of salvation."

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 naine 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