That he has asserted, in derogation and depraving of Holy Scripture, that the authority of the Gospel according to St. John is doubtful, and that the said Gospel ought not to be applied to establish any doctrine, and that whole chapters of the said Gospel are crowded with passages which represent Jesus Christ as speaking words which He never could have spoken, and which, if spoken, would not have been believed (33rd article of charge);

That he has asserted that the Gospel according to St. John contains passages which can only be expounded so that they be repugnant to each other or to other places of God's Word written, or Holy Scripture, and that the character of our Lord Jesus Christ as there set forth is quite irreconcilable with the idea of His being a Teacher sent from God, and is entirely different from the character of the Christ of the other Gospels (34th article of charge). The first, second, and fourth of the offences alleged in the last-mentioned articles of charge are stated to contravene the 6th and 20th Articles of Religion, and the 13th to contravene the 6th Article of Religion; and each of the said offences is also charged to be an assertion of doctrine inconsistent with certain portions of the Book of Common Prayer, set forth in the subsequent articles of charge.

The 6th Article of Religion lays it down that there never was any doubt in the Church of the authority of the canonical books of the Old and New Testaments, and that the Church applies them to establish doctrine. Whilst the 20th Article of Religion declares "that it is not lawful for the Church to ordain any thing that is contrary to God's Word written, nor may it so expound one portion of Scripture that it be repugnant to another."

Now it is very important upon this head of the inquiry to consider the Judgment delivered by Lord Westbury in the case of "Essays and Reviews." (Williams v. the Bishop of Salisbury, and Wilson v. Fendall. 2 Moore, P.C. Cases, New Series, p. 426.)

In considering one of the charges against Dr. Williams in that case the Judgment states the case thus:-" The words that the Bible is an expression of devout reason, and therefore to be read with reason in freedom,' are treated in the charge as equivalent to these words :-The Bible is the composition or work of devout or pious men, and nothing more; but such a meaning ought not to be ascribed to the words of a writer who, a few lines farther on, has plainly affirmed that the Holy Spirit dwelt in the sacred writers of the Bible. This context enables us to say that the words, 'an expression of devout reason, and, therefore, to be read with reason in freedom,' ought not to be taken in the sense ascribed to them by the accusation. In like manner we deem it unnecessary to put any interpretation on the words, written voice of the congregation,' inasmuch as we are satisfied that whatever may be the meaning of the passages included in this article, they do not, taken collectively, warrant the charge which has been made that Dr. Williams has maintained the Bible not to be the Word of God, nor the rule of faith."

The Judgment therefore is express in saying that the ground for regarding the statements of Dr. Williams as not exceeding the just limits allowed by the Articles of Religion was, that he did not state the Bible to be the composition of devout men, and nothing more. So, in considering the charge against Mr. Wilson, the following passage occurs (p. 429):-"In the 8th article of charge an extract of some length is made from Mr. Wilson's Essay, and the accusation is, that in the passage extracted, Mr. Wilson has declared

and affirmed in effect that the Scriptures of the Old and New Testament were not written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, and that they were not necessarily at all, and certainly not in parts, the Word of God; and then reference is made to the 6th and 20th Articles of Religion, to part of the Nicene Creed, and to a passage in the Ordination of Priests in the Book of Common Prayer. This charge, therefore, involves the proposition,—that it is a contradiction of the doctrine laid down in the 6th and 20th Articles of Religion, in the Nicene Creed, and in the Ordination Service of Priests, to affirm that any part of the canonical books of the Old or New Testament, upon any subject whatever, however unconnected with religious faith or moral duty, was not written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit."

Guided by the Judgment we have thus referred to, we do not think the 11th charge contained in the 31st article of charge is so made out by the extract given from the appellant's work as to justify us in regarding that article of charge as established. The appellant asserts, indeed, at the end of a long passage, extracted in page 41, that all knowledge of God can only come from our own deep sense of what He requires us to do; and these words are associated with much disparagement of the Bible. But it is possible to interpret these words as meaning that the Bible itself should be of no effect in imparting a knowledge of God if that deep sense of what He requires us to do were absent. A sense in which the expression would be allowable, and, following the example set by the Judgment in the case of the Essays and Reviews, we think this interpretation in a quasi-criminal proceeding should prevail. As regards the remaining charges contained in the following articles of charge, whatever force may be given to the word "authority" in the 6th Article of Religion "as applied to the canonical books of the Old and New Testament," we are of opinion that, in order that the books (which are enumerated) should have any authority at all, it is not consistent with that Article of Religion for any private clergyman, of his own mere will, not founding himself upon any critical inquiry, but simply upon his own taste and judgment, to assert that whole passages of such canonical books are without any authority whatever, as being contrary to the teaching of Christ, as contained in others of the canonical books. We think that no private clergyman can do that which the whole Church is by the 20th Article declared to be incompetent to do, viz. expound one part of Scripture in a manner repugnant to another, and we need not go through the painful task of citing the numerous passages in the extracts where this is done by the appellant. We find whole chapters of the Gospel of St. John declared by the appellant on his own simple assertion, to be irreconcilable with the other Gospels, not on points unconnected with "religious faith and duty," to use the words of the Judgment in the case of the "Essays and Reviews," but in the most essential manner connected with both; and again, whole passages declared to be spurious on no other ground than that they do not approve themselves to the appellant's taste. We can entertain no doubt then that the charges contained in the 32nd, 33rd, and 34th articles of charge are abundantly established.

We have now fulfilled the duty of examining minutely the articles of charge exhibited against the appellant. We have not been unmindful of the latitude wisely allowed by the Articles of Religion to the clergy, so as to embrace all who hold one common faith. The mysterious nature of many

of the subjects associated with the cardinal points of this faith, must of necessity occasion great diversity of opinion, and it has not been attempted by the Articles to close all discussion, or to guard against varied interpretations of Scripture with reference even to cardinal articles of faith, so that these articles are themselves plainly admitted, in some sense or other, according to a reasonable construction, or according even to a doubtful, but not delusive construction. Neither have we omitted to notice the previous decisions of the Ecclesiastical Courts, and especially the judgments of this tribunal, by which interpretations of the Articles of Religion which by any reasonable allowance for the variety of human opinion can be reconciled with their language, have been held to be consistent with a due obedience to the laws ecclesiastical, even though the interpretation in question might not be that which the tribunal itself would have assigned to the Article.

We have also had careful regard to the explanations given by the appellant himself in Court of those of his writings from which the extracts contained in the articles of charge have been taken, in order to see whether the extracts convey to the mind the advised and definite opinions of the author, or whether their meaning can be modified by the context in a sense more consistent with the Articles of Religion, but we cannot find any indication of such being the case. We think that the extracts deliberately exhibit the opinions of the appellant, by which the Articles of Religion, with reference to original sin, the sacrifice and suffering of Christ, the Son of God, both God and man, to reconcile His Father to man, the Incarnation and Godhead of the Son, His return to judge the world, the doctrine of the Trinity, are plainly contradicted and impugned, and the Holy Scriptures are as plainly denied their legitimate authority, even on points essential both to faith and duty, by the process of denying their genuineness, not on any critical grounds, but avowedly because they contradict the appellant's private judgment.

We have not, in this our decision, referred to any of the Formularies of the Church other than the Articles of Religion. We have been mindful of the authorities, which have held that pious expressions of devotion are not to be taken as binding declarations of doctrine. But the appellant will, we think, himself feel how impossible it is that any society whatever of worshippers can be held together without some fundamental points of agreement, or can together worship a Being in whom they have no common faith. He himself seems to have experienced the difficulty in the remarkable passages extracted in page 42 of the Appendix, with reference to prayer in the name of Jesus Christ. The whole of the Formularies of the Church, and of its devotion, are based on the faith in one God, the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. In the daily services of the Church, both morning and evening, glory is ascribed at the end of each Psalm to this one God in Trinity, naming each person of the Godhead separately. Prayer constantly concludes with a reference to the mediation of Jesus Christ. Direct prayer is addressed to Jesus Christ in the daily service, morning and evening by the short prayer of "Christ, have mercy upon us." In the daily Morning Prayer, throughout a great portion of the Te Deum, prayer is made to the Son; and three times in a week, in the Litany, there is direct prayer addressed both to the Son and to the Holy Ghost, as well as to the Holy Trinity. In fact, a large portion of the Litany is addressed to the Son directly. It is not surprising, then, that there should be Articles distinctly supporting devotions, so fully impressed with a faith.

in the intercession and power of the Son who is thus invoked. And it would be as contrary to morality as to law to direct the professors of any religion daily to offer prayer to One in whose divine power they have no faith, or to address as God One whom they believed to be only man.

The appellant, in his address to us, relied much on the absence of direct verbal contradiction in his writings to the words of the Articles of Religion, and asserted that, inasmuch as the Articles could not be all reconciled with each other, he might properly dwell on one view of an Article, which, from the inconsistent character of the Articles, would be opposed to the construction of another Article. The mode in which the appellant constantly misrepresents and caricatures the opinions from which he differs, no doubt accounts for his thus attributing inconsistency to statements of doctrine which he has misunderstood.

We are, on a perusal of the appellant's writings, driven to the conclusion, not removed by his arguments, that the appellant advisedly rejects the doctrines on the profession of which alone he was admitted to the position of a Minister of the Church. He disclaims all wish to reconsider his avowed and published opinions, and does not desire an opportunity of retracting any of his opinions. We are bound, therefore, to advise her Majesty that his appeal against the admission of the Articles should be dismissed with costs, and that, on the merits of the whole case, sentence of deprivation should be pronounced against the appellant, and that he should be condemned in the costs of the suit.

In pronouncing this decision their Lordships have assumed that the appellant adheres to the intimation, made by him on the conclusion of the argument, that he does not desire an opportunity of retracting the opinions which have now been condemned; but their Lordships are, nevertheless, unwilling to proceed to the last step of their duty if he do, within a week from this date, expressly and unreservedly retract the several errors of which he has been convicted.

Their Lordships would have followed the precedent afforded by Mr. Heath's case if the appellant had been present, and would have required his immediate decision, but they have been informed that Mr. Voysey's absence is occasioned by a sufficient reason.

II.

THE PURCHAS CASE.

THE Judgment of the Privy Council, in the Appeal of Hebbert v. Purchas, is another of the most important ecclesiastical judgments of modern times, affecting as it does the legality of the principal Ritualistic acts and observances which have lately become of frequent use in many English Churches. Mr. Purchas was Perpetual Curate of St. James's Church at Brighton. The articles of charge, which were the subject of appeal, were as follows:

:

I. That by an Act of Parliament passed in a Session of Parliament holden in the 1st year of the reign of Queen Elizabeth, chapter 2, and by another Act of Parliament passed in a Session of Parliament holden in the 13th and 14th years of the reign of King Charles II., chapter 4, and by another Act of Parliament passed in a Session of Parliament holden in the 28th and 29th

years of the Queen, chapter 122, and by the 14th, 36th, and 38th of the Constitutions and Canons Ecclesiastical treated upon by the Bishop of London, President of the Convocation for the province of Canterbury, and the rest of the Bishops and Clergy of the said province, and agreed upon, with the licence of his Majesty King James I., in their Synod, begun at London in the year of our Lord 1603, and ratified by his said Majesty's Letters Patent under the Great Seal of England, all Clerks and Ministers in Holy Orders are, among other things, bound to say and use the Book of Common Prayer, and Administration of the Sacraments, and other rites and ceremonies of the Church, according to the use of the United Church of England and Ireland, and that any Clerk or Minister in Holy Orders offending against the said Statute Law, Constitutions, and Canons, ought to be punished according to the gravity of his offence and the exigencies of the law.

II. That by the Laws, Statutes, Constitutions, and Canons Ecclesiastical of this Realm, and more particularly by or by virtue of the Statutes 1st Elizabeth, chapter 2, and 13th and 14th Charles II., chapter 4, and of the 58th Canon of the Constitutions and Canons Ecclesiastical in the last preceding article mentioned, every Minister of the Church in England, when saying the Public Prayers, or administering the Sacraments, or other rites of the Church, in parish churches, and other churches and chapels in England, is required to wear a decent and comely surplice with sleeves, with such hood as by the orders of their Universities are agreeable to their degrees, and being not Graduates, they are permitted to wear upon their surplices a decent tippet of black, but not of silk, instead of hoods; but that it is not lawful for such Ministers, or for any of them, when so officiating in parish churches, other churches or chapels in England, at the Public Prayers, or when ministering the Sacraments or other rites of the Church, to wear the following vestments, or any of them; namely, a cope, a chasuble, an alb with patches called apparels, tippets of a circular form on the shoulders, gold stoles, coloured stoles, a dalmatic, a tunic or a tunicle, a stole crosswise, that is, crossed over the breast, or a cap or covering for the head called a biretta.

III. That you, the said Rev. John Purchas, have been for many years past, and now are, a Clerk in Holy Orders of the United Church of England and Ireland, and that on the 27th day of June, in the year 1866, you were licensed or admitted as Perpetual Curate, or Minister, of St. James's Church or Chapel at Brighton, in the county of Sussex, and diocese of Chichester, and province of Canterbury.

XVI. That you, the said Rev. John Purchas, in the said Church or Chapel of St. James's, Brighton, aforesaid, on Whit Sunday, May the 16th, 1869, administered wine mixed with water instead of wine to the Communicants at the Lord's Supper.

XVII. That you, the said Rev. John Purchas, in the said Church or Chapel of St. James's, Brighton, aforesaid, on divers occasions (to wit, on Sunday, February the 7th, 1869; on Ash Wednesday, February the 10th, 1869; on Sunday, February the 28th, 1869; on Sunday, March the 14th, 1869; on Sunday, March the 21st, 1869; on Easter Sunday, March the 28th, 1869), during the Prayer of Consecration in the Order of the Administration of the Holy Communion, elevated the paten or one of the wafers on the Communion Table, for the Holy Communion, above your head, and permitted and sanctioned such elevation by the other officiating