.JUDli.AIENT, Right OF Private. The Church of Konie denies the right as claimed by Protestants on the following grounds: that the Church, being assisted by the Spirit of God in searching the Scriptures, having the promise of the presence of Jesus to the end of the world, and having the possession of the unwritten word as a commentary on the written, is the only safe interpreter of holy Scripture, and the supreme judge by whose de- linitive sentence all contfoversies with regard to the •meaning of particular passages or the general doctrine of holy Scripture must be determined. It makes a dis- tinction, liowcA'er, between the learned exegesis, as ap- plied to the sacred WTitings, and that interpretation which emanates from the Church. The interpretation of the Church does not descend to the details which must claim the attention of the scientific cxegetist. Tlius, f(jr example, she does not hold it her duty, nor in- clude it in the compass of her rights, to determine when, by whom, and for what object the book of Job was written; or what particular inducement engaged St. John to publish his Gospel, or St. Paul to address an epistle to the Komans; in what order of time the epis- tles of the apostle followed each other, etc. As little does she undertake to explain particular words and verses, their bearnigs one on the other, or the connection exist- ing between larger portions of the sacred book. An-
tiquities, in the widest sense of the word, fall not within the domain of her interpretation ; m short, that inter- pretation extends only to doctrines of faith and morals. Within these limits she declares it to be the duty of Christians to acquiesce in this infallible determination, and that it is presumption and impiety, and a sin for which they deserve everlasting punishment, to oppose tlieir own private judgment, which cannot of itself at- tain the truth, to the decision of the Church, which can- not err.
To this extraordinary claim Protestants agree in op- posing this principle, that the holy Scriptures are the only rule of faith. But, while there is a general agree- ment as to this, i. e. to receive tiie Scriptiu-es as a suffi- cient rule of faith, and as the only authoritative rule, there are wide diversities of opinion concerning the power reserved to the Church as to the doctrines of re- ligion. The extreme view is that the Church at no time possesses the right of intermeddling in articles of faith. The essential articles of faith are so few, so sim- ple, and so easily gathered out of clear and explicit pas- sages, that it is impossible for any man who has the exercise of his reason to miss them ; that no harm can arise from aUowing any man to interpret the Scriptures as he pleases ; and that, as Scripture may be sufficiently understood for purposes of salvation without any foreign assistance, all creeds and confessions of faith composed and prescribed by human authority are an encroach- ment upon the prerogative of the supreme Teacher, and an invasion of. the right of private judgment. Such fiu-thermore maintain that all divisions among Chris- tians have grown out of the attempt of the Church to force upon Christians uniformity of belief as to the doc- trines of holy Scripture.
This view of the right of private judgment is gener- ally held by the followers of Socinus, and among its ablest champions at the present day are some of the leading minds of the Church of England, who, on ac- count of their peculiar views, are denominated Jloder- ate. Catholic, Broad Church, by the friends of that party; Latitudinarian, or Indifferent, by its enemies. Believ- ing that the superficial differences between Christians are as nothing in comparison with their essential agree- ment, they are willing that the portals of the Church should be flung as wide open as the gates of heaven. This is clearly set forth by the late Dr. Arnold : "AU societies of men, whether we call them states or church- es, should make their bond to consist in a common ob- ject and a common practice rather than in a common belief; in other words, their end should be good rather than truth. We may consent to act together, but v.-e cannot consent to believe together ; many motives may persuade us to the one : we may like the object, or we may like our company, or we may think it safest to join them, or most convenient, and any one of these motives is quite sufficient to induce a unit}" of action, action be- ing a thing in our own power. But no motives can per- suade us to believe together; we maj' wish a statement to be true, we may admire those who believe it, wc may find it very inconvenient not to believe it; all this helps us nothing; unless our own mind is freely convinced that the statement or doctrine is true, we cannot by possibil- ity believe it.
" Such a union of action appears historically to have been the original bond of the Christian Church. Who- ever was willing to receive Christ as his Master, to join his people, and to walk according to his rules, was admitted to the Christian society. We know that in the earliest Church there existed the strangest varieties of belief, some Christians not even believing that there would be a resurrection of the dead. Of course it was not intended that such varieties should be perpetual ; a closer union of belief was gradually effected ; but the point to observe is that the union of belief grew out of the union of action ; it was the result of belonging to the society rather than a previous condition required for belonging to it, for no liuman power can presume to