sacred writings, "the effectual fervent prayer," and the eloquence of a holy life, these were the weapons he put into their hands, the only weapons adapted to the genius of his religion and to the nature of man.*

One of the opinions Wycliffe was charged with holding was this, "It is blasphemy to call any but Christ, head of the church."

"The office of the head is, to prescribe laws to his church which should bind men's consciences to the obedience of the same: and of such lawgivers there is but one. James iv. 18.”—Archbishop Usher. "Christians are forbidden to look up to any man as having dominion over their faith, as entitled to implicit credence and submission, or, as the head of their sect whose decisions were stamped with authority over their consciences; they were to oppose all claims and pretensions of this kind by whomsoever they were advanced or on whatever grounds."-Rev. T. Scott, late Rector of Aston Sanford, Comment. Matt. xxiii. 8-10.

It is equally difficult to reconcile a hearty belief in the twentieth article of the Church of England with these sentiments, and to distinguish them in substance from the following: "Authoritative and legislative interference apart from him, we dare not recognise: our loyalty to Christ as the church's only head, compels us to disclaim it, and to protest against all human dictation. It cannot be shown that he has any where delegated his sovereignty; that he has appointed any order of men to act for him in a vice-regal capacity, and invested them with irresponsible and discretionary

From this view of Christ's authority is derived another principle scarcely less momentous, -the absolute sufficiency of the sacred Scriptures, "the word of Christ," to prescribe the faith and regulate the practice of his followers. A revelation inadequate to these purposes, it is generally admitted, would be at once derogatory to God, and a cruel mockery of erring man. Nor can the perplexity arising out of contending human powers, and conflicting articles of faith and rules of practice, be avoided, but by submitting all to one criterion," to the law and to the testimony," and by the consideration that " if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them." *

powers, or indeed with any powers at all, to frame articles of belief and formularies of worship and discipline, to fix the meaning of his word, or to devise and prescribe the religion of a congregation, or community, or province, or nation."-Scales' Principles of Dissent, p. 72.

Isa. viii. 20. "With respect to difference of opinion on religious subjects, the basis of religion is the Bible, and those [are the] most orthodox christians who adhere the most strictly to the doctrines laid down in that sacred volume. To explain it, is the duty of all mankind,

The Bible, possessing such claims, addresses itself to every rational creature with an individuality which none can evade, and fixes upon each a responsibility which cannot be delegated. Hence there appears (at least in the apprehension of a nonconformist) to devolve upon every one to whom the page of revelation is accessible, the sacred and inalienable right, or rather the imperious and solemn duty, of personally examining its contents and submitting to its precepts. Since its Author has commissioned none to dictate its interpretation, he has, in effect, granted to all a perfect freedom of inquiry and discussion. is it less a duty than a privilege, to aid, as circumstances may allow, in elucidating its doctrines and requirements, and in promoting the practice and the promulgation of such views of religion and forms of worship as an enlightened conscience may approve. This right alone, it is urged, could

Nor

and its interpretation is confined to no particular sect. To use coercion in compelling uniformity is not only impolitic, but while man is constituted as man, it will be impracticable."-Hansard's Debates, May 21st, 1811. Speech of the Archbishop of Canterbury.

justify" Peter and the other apostles" when they openly disobeyed the command of the high priest; and, without claiming any special exemption in their own case, laid down as the ground of their conduct, the general principle " we ought to obey God rather than men.' They deduced their duty from their convictions; and while their enemies "took counsel to slay them," they firmly resisted the interference of human authority between their own consciences and that God who "seeketh such to worship Him" as "worship Him in spirit and in truth."+ Unhappily there has not always been found, among persecutors, a Gamaliel to point out the propriety and the result of allowing the free publication of religious opinions. "Refrain," said he, in terms, a due regard to which would have saved mankind from an inconceivable amount of suffering; "refrain from these men, and let them alone: for if this counsel or this work be of men, it will come to nought: but if it be of God, ye cannot overthrow it; lest haply ye be found even to fight against God.”‡

*Acts v. 29.

John, iv. 23, 24.

Acts v. 38, 39. The conduct of the apostles "was

upon

Nonconformity, then, dates its existence from the time when the secular power first infringed the liberty wherewith Christ had made his disciples free. It professes to be jealous of his authority, and to adhere to his laws and institutions. Though ever so palatable or ever so bitter a draught be presented from another source, it still dares to draw from the well-spring of truth the waters of everlasting life which he came to dispense. Whatever, in modes of faith or forms of worship, may be enjoined by civil or ecclesiastical powers, it prefers "to keep close to the college of fishermen, and to the doctrine of inspired apostles; to a Scriptural creed and a spiritual worship." It claims, in a word, to be the only true conformity.

The right of private judgment in religious matters, which follows immediately from the first principles of dissent, has been too generally denied by the rulers of this world to their subjects.

a stand for principles; and in this respect they take their station at the head of the reformers of the world."Bogue and Bennett's History of Dissenters, i. 290.

* Earl of Chatham, in the House of Lords, 1773.