mere opinions of individual Fathers; except it can be shown, that they receive them from an inspired source. But when we find an universal concurrence amongst all the Christian Fathers in favour of a particular interpretation or usage, or when a doctrine has been decided by a council of bishops, collected from all the divisions of the Christian world,-then I conceive that there is a strong responsibility on me to receive it as the true doctrine of Scripture; and to dispute it would be most presumptuous and unsafe.

RIDLEY.

And are there any doctrines which receive decisive confirmation from this authority?

HERBERT.

Yes, all the principal doctrines of our faith. For instance, the great doctrines of the Trinity, and the Divine nature of our Lord, were settled by several councils, especially that of Nice, which first promulgated the Nicene creed.

RIDLEY.

But if a man would not receive the doctrine of our Lord's Divinity, from the word of God, surely it is not likely that he would yield to the authority of a council.

ᎻᎬᎡᏴᎬᎡᎢ,

There you are contradicted by facts: many heretics did actually forsake their heresies when they were condemned by the Church. And the reason of their doing so is sufficiently obvious. If a man acknowledges that the Church has a certain authority in matters of faith, then he admits a principle which will correct the deficiencies of his private judgment. And though he might maintain his heresy against the arguments of another individual, yet when he finds that the Church is against him, he will be disposed to yield.

RIDLEY.

But do you not in a manner deny the sufficiency of Scripture, and set up the Church above the Bible?

HERBERT.

Not at all. I acknowledge unreservedly that Holy Scripture "containeth all things necessary to salvation." In my use of Christian antiquity and Church authority, I do not seek any thing which is not in the Bible, but what is in it. I do not endeavour to learn any thing which holy Scripture does not teach, but what it really does teach.

RIDLEY.

That is certainly a just distinction.

HERBERT.

You see, then, there is not the slightest opposition or contrast between the Bible and the Church. The real contrast—and this it is which jars upon man's pride-is between an unlimited exercise of private judgment, and a due deference to the authority of the Church. I know it is often said, that, if a man will but sit down to read the Bible with humble teachableness, God will lead him in the way of truth: and we need not doubt He will. But that is begging the question; for if God has given His Church to teach us, and we nevertheless disdain to use the help which God has afforded for our instruction, but rely entirely on our own poor judgment; then we do not read Scripture with that humble teachableness to which we trust God's blessing is attached.

RIDLEY.

You are clearly right.

HERBERT.

The twentieth Article points out the use and

C

...

value of Church authority, at the same time limiting it within due bounds. The Church, it declares, "hath power to decree rites and ceremonies, and authority in matters of faith. It is a witness and keeper of Holy Writ: yet, as it ought not to decree any thing against the same, so, besides the same, ought it not to enforce any thing to be believed for necessity of salvation."

RIDLEY.

Is not this something like arguing in a circle? First, authority is given to the Church to interpret Scripture. Then Scripture itself imposes a limit on its interpretation.

Argument on revealed truth (said Herbert gravely) is often little else but arguing in a circle. We cannot get beyond our circumscribed boundary.

We run round and

round, like the poor squirrel in his cage, wearying ourselves to little purpose, and making no progress after all. However, I do not admit that the doctrine of the twentieth Article is liable to this imputation; at least it is not more so than the common affairs of life. The judge interprets the law; yet he may not enforce any thing contrary to

the law. If he goes beyond the law, his decision is liable to be reversed. You receive without hesitation the instruction of your tutor with regard to the right meaning of Euclid or Aristotle ; but if you find him teaching you something palpably contrary to the meaning of the author, then you revert to the author himself. So it was at the time of the Reformation. The Romish Church had transgressed the limits of her power, and corrupted the truth; therefore it was necessary to bring her back to Scripture.

RIDLEY.

Then, after all, the Reformers were obliged to decide according to their private judgment.

HERBERT.

Not so: I do not mean to say that they did use their private judgment; but they formed their private judgment in a great measure by reference to Christian antiquity. They adopted the creeds of the ancient Church as of unquestionable authority in settling the meaning of Scripture. They adhered strictly to the form of Church discipline, which had been handed down to them for fifteen hundred years. They consulted the Catholic Fathers-these very works which you