The system, then, of deferring to the authority of what is called the ancient church in the interpretation of Scripture, is impracticable, inasmuch as, with regard to the greatest part of the Scripture, the church, properly speaking, has said nothing at all; and if it were practicable, it would be untenable, because neither the old councils, nor individual writers, could give any sign that they had a divine gift of interpretation; and if such a gift had been given to them, it would have been equivalent to a new revelation, the sense of the comment being thus preferred to what we could not but believe to be the sense of the text.  Above all, the system is destructive of faith, having a tendency to substitute passive acquiescence for real conviction; and therefore I should not say that the excess of it was popery, but that it had once and actually those characters of evil which we sometimes express by the term popery, but which may be better signified by the term idolatry; a reverence for that which ought not to be reverenced, leading to a want of faith in that which is really deserving of all adoration and love.

II.  But it is said that the system of relying on private judgment is beset by no less evils:  that it is itself inconsistent, and leads to Socinianism and Rationalism, and, in the end, to utter unbelief; so that, the choice being only between two evils, men may choose the system of church authority as being the less evil of the two.  If this were so, I see not how faith could be attained at all, or what place would be left for Christian truth.  But the system of the Church of England[16] is, I am persuaded, fully consistent, and has no tendency either to Socinianism or Rationalism.  Let us see first what that system is.

[Footnote 16:  Much has been lately written to show that the Church of England allows the authority of the ancient councils and writers, and does not allow the right of private judgment.  But it is perfectly clear, from the 21st Article, that it does not allow the authority of councils; that is to say, it holds that a council’s exposition of doctrine may be false, and that such an exposition is of no force “unless it may be declared that it be taken out of Holy Scripture.”  Who, then, is to declare this? for to suppose that the declaration of the council itself is meant is absurd:  the answer, I imagine, would be, according to the mind of the Reformers, “Every particular or national church,” and especially the King as the head of the church.  They would not have allowed private judgment, because they conceived that a private person had nothing to do but to obey the government; and it was for the government to determine what the truth of Scripture was.  The Church of England, then, expressly disclaims the authority of councils, and, in its official instruments, it neither allows nor condemns private judgment; but the opinions of the Reformers, and the constitution of the church in the 16th century, were certainly against private judgment: