itself, and does not suffer the reader to err." The Chaplain is conversant in history, and undoubtedly a person of observation. Can he then seriously believe or imagine it to be Chrysostom's meaning, that the Scripture expounds itself in all points to every reader, so that he cannot err? Is every one able to make that conference and comparison of the different passages of Scripture, which lead to its true interpretation? Can any thing more be intended by that great doctor, than that Scripture directs every reader to such a rule of exposition, as secures him from error? But is his private interpretation this infallible rule? Or is it that of the Church, manifested in her public doctrine, by the ministers of her appointment? Hear St. Chrysostom himself: "Take the book in your hand; read a passage throughout; keep present to your mind, what you understand; but return frequently to the reading of those things, which are obscure and difficult; and if by repeated reading you cannot find out their meaning, go to a teacher, go to one wiser than yourself."* To the authority of Chrysos. tom might be added, I believe, that of every father of the Church; and most of them have delivered their opinions of the insufficiency and obscurity of Scripture, not in fragments of a sentence, but treating professedly and fully on this very subject. To these, allow me to add an authority, which, with many of our Protestant brethren, will weigh more than that of all the fathers. Thus, then, Luther, in his preface to the Psalms: "It is a most audacious presumption in any one to say, that he understands every part even of one book of Scripture." Let the Chaplain recollect all the disputes and variations even amongst Protestants themselves, concerning the meaning of these words - spoken by Christ at his last supper, This is my body. If * Chrys. hom. 3. de Lazaro. † Scio esse impudentissimæ temeritatis eum, qui audeat profiteri unum scripturæ librum a se in omnibus partibus intellectum. Luth. præf.in Psal. ap. Bell. de R. P. 1. 3. c. 21. M innumerable arguments evince to him their meaning to be figurative, he cannot forget, that Luther and Dr. Cosin, a bishop of the Church of England, pronounce anathemas against the maintainers of a figurative sense. After this, will he so confidently repeat his interrogation, “where is the deficiency, where is the obscurity of Scripture ?" "He is content," he says, "to acquiesce in that authority, to which alone St. Austin and St. Chrysostom refer us, insinuating hereby, that Scripture is that sole authority. How he came to mention St. Augustin on this occasion, I am at a loss to conceive. This holy father has made a clear profession of receiving Scripture itself, only because it came recommended to him by the Church. "I would not," says he, "believe the Gospel, if the authority of the Catholic Church did not move me thereunto."* In his controversies with the Manicheans and Donatists, he repeatedly appeals to the authority and practice of the Catholic Church; he tells the latter, that neither they, nor the Catholics, have any clear Scripture for their different opinions concerning rebaptization; but that the former, by refusing to submit to the Church, resist not man, but our Saviour himself, who in the Gospel bears testimony to the Church.t The pretended authority from St. Chrysostom is no more his than mine; it is a reference to the same exploded passage, as was cited in the Chaplain's note, of which enough has been said. I have now gone through a task painful in every point of view in which I could consider it. To write for the public eye, on any occasion whatever, is neither agreeable to my feelings, my leisure, nor opportunities; that it is likewise disproportioned to my abilities, my readers, I doubt, will soon discover. But if reduced to the necessity of publishing, I would wish that my duty led me to any * Ego vero evangelio non crederem, nisi me ecclesiæ Catholicæ commoveret auctoritas. Aug. cont. Epis. Fundam. c. 5. † Aug lib. 1. cont. Cresc. c. 33.-& de Unit. Eccl. species of composition, rather than that of religious controversy. Mankind have conceived such a contempt for it, that an author cannot entertain a hope of enjoying those gratifications, which in treating other subjects may support his spirits and enliven his imagination. Much less could I have a prospect of these incitements in the prosecution of my present undertaking. I could not forget, in the beginning, progress, and conclusion of it, that the habits of thinking, the prejudices, perhaps even the passions of many of my readers, would be set against all the arguments I could offer; and that the weaknesses, the errors, the absurdities of the writer, would be imputed to the errors and absurdity of his religion. But of all considerations, the most painful was, that I had to combat him, with whom I had been connected in an intercourse of friendship and mutual good offices; and in connexion with whom I hoped to have consummated my course of our common ministry, in the service of virtue and religion. But when I found these expectations disappointed; when I found that he not only had abandoned our faith and communion, but had imputed to us doctrines foreign to our belief, and having a natural tendency to embitter against us the minds of our fellow citizens, I felt an anguish too keen for description; and perhaps the Chaplain will experience a similar sentiment, when he comes coolly to reflect on this instance of his conduct. It did not become the friend of toleration to misinform, and to sow in minds so misinformed, the seeds of religious animosity. Under all these distressful feelings, one consideration alone relieved me in writing; and that was, the hope of vindicating your religion to your own selves at least, and preserving the steadfastness of your faith. But even this prospect should not have induced me to engage in the controversy, if I could fear that it would disturb the harmony now subsisting amongst all Christians in this country, so blessed with civil and religious liberty; which, if we have |