The right of free discussion.

the 17th Article, which was constructed with an evident de sign to meet the views of two classes of men who thought differently in reference to the doctrine of the divine decrees. As Bp. Burnet remarks-" the church has not been peremptory—but a latitude has been left to different opinions."*

I am well aware, that though this principle is inwrought into the very texture of our ecclesiastical organization, there has been at times an unwillingness among us to recognize it. And this has led to nearly all the controversies that have agitated our Zion, since the first establishment of the Episcopal Church in America. One of the great grounds of controversy between high and low churchman is swept away the moment this principle is admitted. And we have reason to believe that there is such an increase of light and love in our borders, that this conceded right will be no more questioned.

The determination which all seem to have come to, is to speak out their own sentiments plainly and allow others to do the same and not to cease to love their brethren, or to call in question their piety or their attachment to the church, though in some points of doctrine, or in reference to some questions of expediency they differ from them. Under the operation of this principle, forbearance will be exercised-brotherly love will prevail—and the angel of peace will stretch her Heavenly wings over Zion. It is our happiness to witness just such a state of things at this moment, through the whole length and breadth of our church-"Peace is within her walls and prosperity within her palaces." May the olive branch be long seen on her walls to apprize all who pass by, that we are the children of the Prince of Peace.

In expressing the preceding sentiments to a brother of another denomination in relation to the importance of the allowed right of free discussion upon points in which brethren may disagree in order to secure union and harmony in the church-and requesting his views on the same point, he very obligingly favoured me with the following communication:

My Dear Brother,

I desire to express to you my hearty assent to the views which you have presented in regard to the right of discussing the doctrines of religion in the church. In my view no *Burnet on 39 Art. p. 230,

The right of discussion.

right is more sacred, or to be guarded and secured with greater vigilance, and even self-sacrifice, and no subject is more important to be well understood in our times, than this. The right of discussing any subject, and all subjects, is a right which I think is conferred on us by the God that made us; is indissolubly connected with moral agency and accountability, and is a right which no human power can wrest from us. It is our birth-right as the creatures of God endowed with reason, and responsible to him; and it is a right growing out of the very genius of our religion, distinguishing it from all others; and growing out of our civil institutions distinguishing them from all the dominations of ty ranny. It is needless to attempt to prove this. Every man feels that as a creature responsible to God, he has a right to investigate for himself every doctrine which is proposed to him as a matter of belief. He owes it to himself, and to God, and is bound to do it by all the fearfulness of the account which he must soon render; and by all the importance of the bearing which it may have on his own welfare. It is secured in this country by the very genius of our republican institutions. Every thing here supposes, that whatever may affect the public welfare, may be, and should be subjected to the test of calm and thorough investigation. And the insti tions of our country are safe no longer than this principle is preserved. It is the very genius of the Protestant religion, and the moment this is abandoned there is a vast retrocession toward the dark regions of the Papacy.

There have been really but two systems of measures proposed on earth for the guidance and governance of man; and all governments, civil and ecclesiastical, can be characterized as they partake of the elements of one or the other of these systems. The one is that which proposes to govern man by mere authority; the other proposes a government that is based on conscience and reason. The one appeals to divine right;* or the venerableness of antiquity; or a claim derived from a long line of ancestors-illustrated in the books of heraldry,

* By "divine right" as used in this article, the writer does not mean that authority and warrant, that can be claimed for any ordinance or institution of the gospel which truly emanates from God, and which can be shown to be derived from him from his word; but that imaginary right, supposed to be derived from the Supreme Being, for which no reason can be shown, nor warrant produced, save its existence and antiquity.

The two systems of government.

but inglorious in all that gives dignity to human nature; the other depends on an appeal to the understanding, on an enlightened public sentiment, on laws, opinions, and usages that commend themselves to mankind as best and true. The one looks upon all discussion of its claims as unauthorized and dangerous; the other courts investigation, believes that discussion will only extend the triumphs of truth, and advance the just ends of government and of human happiness. These two systems divide the world. The defenders of the divine right of kings are on the one side, the friends of liberty are on the other. Those who believe that the power of despots is derived to them from an ancestry whose blood is in some mysterious manner of purer and more elevated material than those of the common mass of men, are on one side; those who believe that all men are by creation equal, and endowed with equal rights, and that all just authority must emanate from them, are on the other. In civil matters, this contest is going on between despotism on the one hand and liberty on the other. The great struggle of these times is on this point; and in Europe the alarm at the progress of freedom, and the tottering of the throne, and the mighty agitations of the people, show how vital is this struggle in regard to the welfare of men.

The same struggle has been carried on in the church of God. On the one hand, there has been a claim set up from unbroken tradition, and the effort has been to secure this claim from the intrusion of those who would examine it, and make it so sacred to the eyes of men as to deter them from its investigation. This is the claim of the Papacy. On the other hand, it has been contended that all those pertaining to the church may be subject to open and candid investigation, that truth will bear inquiry, as gold will bear the burning heat of a crucible; that every man has a right freely and fully to canvass every opinion, and that if a doctrine cannot be defended by the word of God, and by sound reason, it is not to be defended by authority, but it is to be abandoned. This is Pro testantism-and yet the spirit which has governed the advocates of the papacy, and the dogmas which have defended the thrones of despots, have found their way even into the protestant churches; and it seems almost as if after the toils of centuries on this subject, the whole matter about the right of

The right of discussion.

free discussion is to be re-examined in our times. There are men who have power in church and state; and conscious that they cannot maintain it by argument and thought, they rest the claim on authority, on divine right, on tradition, on the fact that their opinions have been held "time whereof the memory of man runneth not to the contrary." Hence even Protestant churches are divided into two great parties; one claiming the right of authority-the other claiming that every thing may be freely and fully investigated. In the Presbyterian church, the Episcopal,* the Baptist, the Methodist, there are these two parties, and though the enquiries are brought to bear on different points of doctrine or order, yet the spirit is the same. It is a struggle between those who would settle every thing by authority, and those who claim the right freely and fully to examine all subjects that may be brought be fore the mind. Investigation will always be resisted by the lovers of absolute power; and freedom of opinion will be denounced by those who are conscious that their claims rest on authority, and tradition rather than truth. There is ultraism in all modes of administration but that of God; and strange as it may seem, and absolute as are his commands, they are all based on reason, and all suppose the right, and the obligation of investigation in his subjects.

There is much reason to apprehend that there will be a necessity that this entire subject should undergo a thorough inquiry in this land. Claims of a high order are set up by those who are opposed to free enquiry; and alike in church and state, there is a strong party disposed to resist those claims.

I am deeply persuaded that there can be no true and permanent peace and prosperity in the church or state unless these claims are admitted. The human mind is free; and must be independent and unshackled. Its powers may be imprisoned, its energies shackled for a time, but they will, as they did in the Reformation, ultimately burst their bonds. That peace which is obtained as the peace of freedom, is false and delusive. It is the quietness of the slumbering volcano ; or rather of a power more terrible when roused than the volcano; of mind, active, mighty, independent; of mind that will

*We hope the time is at hand when this can no longer be affirmed of our Zion.

The true basis of unity.

burst all shackles but those of reason, and conscience, and the authority of God. There can be no permanent union where this right of enquiry is not conceded; there can be no permanent danger but to error and tyranny where it is.

In a special manner, I think, we are to regard the christian religion as favourable to freedom of enquiry. Every where its true spirit has fostered candid investigation; every where it has been retarded where this has been opposed or unknown. And it seems to me that this single principle would do more than all other things at present to produce harmony in the churches. Unity of heart, and purpose is needed as the grand thing; and this may exist where there may be a very considerable difference in religious opinion. On the great doctrines of the christian faith, christians are agreed. The essentials of religion are held by them all. If those doctrines are held there is still a large territory over which the mind may range, and which may be regarded as legitimate fields of enquiry, and where there may be allowed an honest difference of opinions. Union of feeling may exist; union in place; union in the purpose of converting the world to God. And every step which is taken towards this state is a material point gained in my judgment towards that great consummation which is decreed-the union of all christian hearts and hands in turning a revolted world to God. As contributing to this, I pray that a divine blessing may rest on your labours; and that your views may have a speedy and entire circulation through the christian church.

Your affectionate brother in the Lord.

One object we had in asking the writer of the preceding article for his views, upon the particular point which he has discussed, was, that the reader might see in what light this point presented itself to one of another denomination, having no connection with the Episcopal Church. We believe it will be found upon examination, that the Episcopal Church has taken the proper ground in relation to the right of discussion; and that it will be found that harmony is to be preserved not by suppressing the honest sentiments of our hearts, but by stating them frankly, and allowing to others the same privilege.

In the preceding observations that have been offered in relation to christian union, we would not be understood as ex