On this ground then I justify my continuance in the Church of England, viz. its conformity in this important branch of its constitution to the primitive and apostolic church. But I wish it to be understood that I assign my reasons for such a continuance, not with a view to the conversion of those to my sentiments who are not members of our church; but merely for the purpose of showing that I do not act without reason, and of confirming those who are members of our own church, but have not had an opportunity of obtaining information on the subject under consideration,—of confirming them in their attachment to that church, which I consider to be “built,” in its constitution as well as its doctrines, “on the foundation of the Apostles and Prophets, Jesus Christ Himself being the chief corner-stone.” From HIM all authority descends; for in HIM, as “the head of His body the church,” it is all vested by Divine appointment. “All power is given unto me in heaven and upon earth.—Go ye _therefore_ and teach (or make disciples of) all nations, baptising them in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost.” Thus He handed down the authority He had received to His Apostles; they transmitted it to their immediate successors; and so it has descended to the Bishops or chief pastors of the church in our own day. Without wishing to interfere with the right of private judgment which belongs to every man, and for the exercise of which he is accountable to God only; I own that I cannot see how the Christian Church as a visible society, could have been continued in the world without such a communication of Divine authority.
_I maintain communion with the Church of England_, _because her doctrines are fixed by articles of Religion_, _which appear to me to be derived from and perfectly conformable to the Scriptures of Truth_.
I AM fully aware that some among the ministers of the church to which I belong, may have entered into her service without understanding or fully approving the articles to which they subscribed their assent and consent, and consequently may preach doctrines differing from those of the church whose ministers they are. The possibility of the supposed case appears from the painful necessity, under which a late Bishop of London was laid, of depriving an unsound clergyman of his office. But such ministers cannot do this without exposing their own ignorance or hypocrisy; nor can their own unbelief make the faith of the church of no effect. These articles I consider to be the bulwark of orthodoxy or true doctrine in our church,—the means of her preservation from apostacy in the lowest state of spiritual life to which she has been or may be reduced, and of providing for her recovery from such a state whenever God is pleased to breathe upon her. A declaration or subscription to the truth of the Bible would afford no security, as all who bear the Christian name, however heretical or unsound in opinion, pretend to derive their creed from the word of God. I conceive therefore that it is of high importance to have the principal articles of the Christian faith embodied in such a way, that no heretic can, without manifest dishonesty, subscribe to them. If the incumbent or minister of any parish be thus dishonest, having subscribed to what he never cordially believed, and preaching doctrines contrary to the articles he has subscribed, when his incumbency or ministry in that parish ceases by death or any other cause, the articles of the church remain in full force. But if no such test existed, and if the election to church preferment were vested in the people, a single incumbency might so corrupt the opinions of the congregation as to perpetuate heresy from generation to generation.