" versies of faith. And yet it is not lawful for the church "to ordain anything that is contrary to God's word written. "Neither may it so expound one place of Scripture that "it be repugnant to another. Wherefore, although the "church be a witness and a keeper of Holy Writ, yet

66

as it ought not to decree anything against the same, "so besides the same ought it not to enforce anything to "be believed for necessity of salvation."

I suppose the part of this article upon which the prosecutors rely is the expression, "God's word written,” and that they consider the use of that phrase as amounting to the assertion that every word contained in the Bible is the written word of God. If they do it, I think they make a very unfortunate selection, for this reason-the article contains three expressions, each of which refers to the Bible. in some shape: "It is not lawful for the church to ordain "anything contrary to God's word written." If you have the written word of God for any proposition, you are not to contradict it. "Neither may it so expound one place of

66

66

66

Scripture, that it be repugnant to another." If they meant that Scripture was identical with " God's word written," why change the phrase? Then again: "Wherefore although "the church be a witness and a keeper of Holy Writ." In the Latin articles, the expression for " Holy Writ" is "Divinorum Librorum.” Now, what was meant by Holy "Writ" there? Why not say "God's word written" again? Because it did not mean the same thing. "You must not "contradict God's written word contained in that of which "the church is a keeper." In other words, there is a certain number of sacred writings which the church is to guard; those sacred writings contain amongst other things God's written word; and God's written word is not to be contradicted. I do not lay any particular stress upon that, because I am not going to argue upon words, it is not

a question of words; I wish to put the whole thing upon the broadest foundation, and I beg your lordship to take a broad view of the matter; to look at the plain sense of the articles, and not at the mere wording; except in so far as it is essential to that sense. Still I say if any argument is to be raised on the wording of the twentieth article it is rather in favour of a distinction between "God's written "word" and "Holy Writ," or else why change the phrase?

*

The fact, however, is that the use of the phrase, “God's "word written," proves nothing at all; for this simple reason, that it is used by persons who do not in the least degree believe that every word in the Bible is the word of God. I could show twenty instances of that. I confine myself to a single instance, because it is most emphatic, and I will leave it upon that. In Baxter's paraphrase of the New Testament, there is this expression: "as long as "we know that it (i. e. the New Testament) is all the Word of the Spirit of God" (the phrase is italicized in the original), "it satisfieth our faith whether it be bound up " in one book or many." I ask your lordship to bear that in mind. I will not say what Baxter thought of the Bible at present, but when the proper time comes I shall call your lordship's attention with emphasis to his view of the subject.

66

The expression, "Word of God," is exactly like the common expression, "Gospel;" the proper meaning of which is the revelation which God made to man, or which Christ made to man, though it is often used as the proper name of the four lives of our Lord in which that revelation is contained. When we speak of these books as "the Gospels," do we affirm that every thing which is contained in any one of them is equally part of God's revelation to man? Would it be believed, for example, that any one, * Preface, p. vii.

because he spoke of the Gospel of St. Matthew, meant that the genealogy in the first chapter was part of the revelation of God to man? Such an inference would be absurd. Thus the use of the words, "God's word written," proves nothing for the prosecutors. It may mean pars pro toto. It may mean "Scripture in so far as it is the word of God." In the absence of an emphatic declaration, such as occurs in the formularies of other Protestant bodies, that every part of the Bible is the word of God, you are not to assume that the church would insinuate a declaration of such vital importance by the turn of a phrase in an article on another subject.

Although, as I say, I think the wording of the article adds little, if anything, to the argument, the scope of the article does add to it materially, for it lays down "that the church hath authority in controversies of faith." Compare that with what has gone before; look at the frame of the Thirty-nine Articles, and the mode in which they are drawn up. The first six articles refer to the being, attributes, and nature of the Holy Trinity, and the seventh and eighth articles refer to the revelation which it pleased God to make to man. The ninth to the eighteenth give a summary of human nature, and the eighteenth to the twenty-fourth relate to the authority of the church.

I do not know that I can show the scope of the whole better than in the form of a sort of dialogue between the church and its members.

It would be in this form :

Q. Is there a God? of what nature is he? A. Yes, there is a God.

Q. Has he made any revelation to man? A. He has; that revelation is contained in the Holy Scriptures.

Q. But supposing questions to arise about the Scriptures,

what then? A. The church has authority in controversies of faith.

Q. But is the church, then, the legislator as well as the judge? A. No; the church is limited by the Bible. It is the judge in controversies of faith, but it must judge according to the Bible. If I may use a professional illustration, the church and the Bible stand in the relative position of a court of judicature in this country and the authoritative books which contain the law of the land. This view is altogether inconsistent with the notion that the Bible actually constitutes the revelation of God to man, and implies the view that it only contains one which the church is to elicit out of it; for upon the other view there would be no room for controversies of faith, and for the judicial authority of the church.

Such being the scope of the Thirty-nine Articles, I have a few observations to make upon what the church does not say in these articles; for that is of vital importance. It says of the three Creeds, that they are to be "thoroughly received and believed "-where does it say that of the Bible? Nowhere. It says, indeed, they can be "proved by most certain warrants of Holy Scripture." No doubt. But then it does not follow that all the contents of the Bible must be infallible. I will put a parallel case. If it was of importance thoroughly to receive and believe a list of the Roman emperors, and if it had been declared in the first instance that Gibbon's history contained all things necessary for the completion of such a list, it might be laid down by a body having competent authority in the matter that a specific list of the Roman emperors was to be thoroughly received and believed because it might be proved by most certain warrants of Gibbon's history. It would not, however, follow that the consequence was that every word of Gibbon was infallibly true, for the

history might contain many other matters, some irrelevant to the composition of such a list, and some false. This is not a mere hypothesis. It might well be said the proposition that the eldest son is the heir-at-law to his father ought to be thoroughly received and believed, for it may be proved by most certain warrants of Coke upon Littleton, but would that imply that every word of Coke upon Littleton is infallible? Surely not; yet it is unquestionably true that Coke upon Littleton contains all things necessary to support the proposition in question.

These illustrations put in a plain and familiar light the respective positions assigned by the law of England to the Church and to the Bible.

Q.

These being the standards of the belief of the Church of England on this vital subject, I ask whether that liberty has ever been abridged? The only authority to which the prosecutors refer which can be supposed to restrain it (and I think that is pretty good evidence that it is the only authority that can be referred to), is the following question and answer in the Ordination Service for Deacons. "Do you unfeignedly believe all the canonical Scriptures " of the Old and New Testament?" A.-"I do believe "them." What is the effect of this question and answer? I will first give my own interpretation of it, and I will then show that it can bear no other. I believe it to be a designedly vague and loose statement, demanding from the deacon an account of his personal opinion and state of mind at the time when he gives the answer, and at no other time, and intended exclusively as a test for ordination. I affirm that it has absolutely no dogmatic value whatever. I shall show your lordship directly, that if it had a dogmatic value it would not affect us in the least. Dr. Williams would be perfectly ready now to answer that question in the affirmative, just as he did when he