might have been added immorality; but that it is more correctly viewed as a general result of the whole, than as a distinct and additional trait. Certain it is, that the great body of professing Christians have long ceased to resemble the first believers in purity and elevation of character; nor can the difference be well accounted for, but by supposing either that a religion from heaven may become enfeebled by age, and cease to be followed by the effects which it was designed to, and originally did, produce; or, that the corruptions of the gospel have materially interfered with its regenerating and sanctifying efficacy. There can be no hesitation in adopting the latter supposition. Even amid the glories of primitive Christianity, the seed of these evils was traced lurking in the churches. It soon sprung up, and when the apostles were removed, had a rapid growth. After the political conversion of the Roman emperors, it attained a baneful maturity, and spread its branches over the earth, while every fairer flower withered in its shade. It is not yet "hewn down and cast into the fire." We have found its fruits in different sects; and in some behold goodly slips, which, though severed from the trunk, retain many of the noxious qualities of the parent Upas. To recover from that great apostacy must needs be a work of time. Those reformed churches which

left the path of free inquiry open, did most towards it but those which made certain changes, and then stopped, did little or nothing. The essence of the evil remained; and its abolition has been found as difficult as ever. To which of these classes we must assign the sect which took possession of much of the authority, property and privileges of Popery in this kingdom, will appear from a brief review of its constitution, faith, worship, and influence.

Following the same train of thought as in the first Lecture, in which dominion over conscience appeared to be a criterion between genuine and spurious Christianity, we inquire, Does the Church of England claim, or renounce, this forbidden lordship? Are its members at liberty to believe and profess whatever appears to them to be taught in the New Testament? No such thing. Their faith is marked out for them; and on almost every subject of interest, and on many of very inferior moment, they are minutely instructed what they must believe. Nay, it is broadly asserted, (Art. xx.,) that "the Church hath power to decree rites or ceremonies, and authority in controversies of faith." This assumption may be apparently limited by the declaration which follows, that it must not be contrary to God's word, nor make Scripture contradict itself: but the limitation is only in appearance; for who

judges of this contrariety? Why, this same and of course the contrariety can never

Church happen. (d)

If there be one thing clearer than another in the New Testament, it is, that Christianity is a personal religion. Every one is bound for himself to ascertain what its truths are, as of himself he must realize its virtues if he would enjoy its blessings. No man, or set of men, are or ever have been vested with the character of authorized interpreters, and its assumption is intolerable. Jesus, and he alone, is the religious Teacher of the world. Yet has the Church of England put forth an enormous collection of propositions, and declared that this is Christianity, and shall be believed.

And what is meant by the Church in this connexion? The Nineteenth Article well defines a church to be "a congregation of faithful men, in the which the pure word of God is preached, and the sacraments duly ministered, according to Christ's ordinance in all those things that of necessity are requisite to the same. This is good and liberal, though not very consistent. It is not Episcopacy, but Independency. But has such a congregation power in matters of faith? Have they a right to say to their individual members, or to any desirous of joining them, or to their offspring, You must believe these articles to be a Christian, to have fellowship with us, to

be admitted to Christian privileges, and to reach heaven hereafter? Certainly not. The very assumption destroys their claim to be a church, and makes them Unchristian and Antichristian usurpers. They have no right for themselves any more than for others. They are disciples, and should leave open the doors of inquiry for their own minds, and not at once decree the cessation of intellectual and religious improvement.

*

But the sense of the members of the Church of England never was taken on this mass of creeds and articles. They have never been consulted: for, by a dexterous juggle, whenever any thing of this description is the subject, the Church means either the Clergy, or the Bishops, or the Parliament, or the Sovereign, or one, or all of these powers, but never the community. In this case, faith was fixed by the Convocation, passed the Legislature, and was ratified by Queen Elizabeth: they were the Church; and could have given another gospel to the good people of England for all generations.

Another extraordinary circumstance in this spiritual usurpation is, that it was to extend not only to contemporary subject millions, but to all posterity. The one hundred and seventeen Priests of the Convocation in 1562, are to be, instead of Christ, for ever the spiritual lawgivers of this realm. Though many could not write their own names, and others voted by proxy, yet their opi

nions are the standard of truth, the perfection of wisdom, and the boundary of improvement.

No less than eight attempts have been made at a reformation in the Church, since the passing of the Act of Uniformity, and all have totally failed. There seems to be a horror of removing the greatest absurdity, or changing the merest trifle. What must be the ultimate fate of a system which thus obstinately resists the progressive illumination of the human mind, and the desires of its best and wisest votaries? (e)

Let us now see, by a few examples, how this lordship over faith has been exercised.

The Church has three Creeds, or, reckoning the Articles, four; composed in distant ages, and gradually becoming more absurd, erroneous, unscriptural, and intolerant. The first is called the Apostles' Creed. It was indisputably not of apostolic composition; nor is it expressed in terms borrowed from their writings. It is, however, of early date, and strictly Unitarian. The Trinity, the Atonement, Original Sin, and other gloomy reveries of later times, are no part of it. Yet the doubtful tale of the miraculous birth of Christ is there; as is also the marvellous falsehood of his descent into hell, which is repeated in the third article. That he was buried, is a separate clause; there is therefore no room for the evasion that by "hell" is only meant the grave. Whether the authors and patrons of the creed meant, with