no friend here while outside your temple; but we know that we are not alone, because our Father is with us, and you can offer no friend, no Saviour, no Comforter, so good, and true, and faithful as He. We are therefore not afraid to disobey your injunctions, to tear up your creeds, and to despise your ordinances. For all these are based upon a fundamental mistake."

If in the above extracts the appellant had been simply combating the extreme views which have been adopted by some divines, either with reference to what is commonly called Calvinism on the one hand or Ritualism on the other, we conceive he would have been fully entitled so to do; and we should have been glad if we could have so reconciled his writings with the doctrine contained in the Articles and Formularies of the Church, but the extracts themselves are clearly intended to teach that in no sense are mankind naturally separated from God, or under God's wrath, which he represents to be a false assumption at the very beginning and as occasioning the Ritualists, on that account, to take a foolish and mistaken course. It is true that he adds, as a portion of the error taught by them, and which he assumes to be their doctrine, "God will not hear our prayers, or forgive us our sins, until we have been baptized, and have submitted ourselves to your authority," meaning the authority of the priest; and if this had been all it might have admitted of explanation consistent with the doctrine of the Church; but the appellant makes his meaning clear, not only by the previously-cited extract concerning St. Paul's teaching, but what follows the last cited words, “We say that we are not separated from God, nor under His wrath; that God is always with us all, and we are His children by nature, therefore we are near and dear to Him all our lives through;" "We know that we are not alone, because our Father is with us, and you can offer no friend, no Saviour, no Comforter, so good, and faithful, and true as He."

We cannot doubt that the appellant advisedly contravenes the doctrine of a change of man's natural condition (in which the Church represents him to be subject to God's wrath), through the sacrifice of Christ offered to reconcile His Father to us, and that the 4th charge is therefore established.

As regards the 5th charge against the appellant, we think that to assert that mankind needs no justification, or that salvation is not through justification, or that justification by faith is contrary to the teaching of Jesus Christ, is so plainly opposed to the very words of the 2nd and 11th Articles of Religion, that we need hardly cite them.

We have the advantage of an authoritative exposition, if any were required, of the 11th Article of Religion in the case of Heath v. Burder, before the Privy Council (15 Moore's P. C. Reports, p. 82, and Fremantle, p. 235), where Lord Cranworth, in delivering judgment, says, "The evident meaning of the 11th Article is, that man is accounted righteous, which in the Article is treated as the same thing as being justified before God, not for his own merits, but for the merits of our Saviour by faith in Him, i. e. that man is admitted to the favour of God, not for his own works, but for the merit of his Saviour and by faith in Him, i. e. by man's faith in our Saviour, howsoever faith is to be defined."

The following extracts from the appellant's book appear to us clear contradictions of these Articles of Religion.

"He (meaning the Saviour) never even hinted at such a doctrine as that of the fall of man, or the atonement by sacrifice, or justification by faith. He

never taught that men needed to be accounted righteous before God, or needed any mediator to propitiate His wrath, or to draw them to Himself. All these notions were Jewish, and Christ never gave any sanction or encouragement to them that I have been able to discover." And again:"Sincere sorrow for sin is enough to make a man quite reconciled and at peace with God; at least so our Lord teaches. We do not therefore need any atonement nor any justification. We need no atonement, for God requires none.' These six heads of charge complete the first of the three classes of charge and we will proceed to the second class, viz., those relating to alleged errors as to the Incarnation and Godhead of Christ.

Five articles of charge (the 23rd to the 27th inclusive) allege these errors-first, that the appellant asserts (23rd article of charge) "that our Lord Jesus is no more Very God of Very God, begotten not made, than we men are, contrary to the 2nd, 4th, and 8th of the Articles of Religion." Next, that he asserts (24th article of charge) "that the worship of Christ is idolatry, and is inconsistent with the worship of the true God, and that it is an instance of holding up our hands to a strange god,, and outrivals the worship of the one true God, and draws away our highest homage and affection from God to another," contrary to the 1st, 2nd, and 8th Articles of Religion. Next, that he asserts (25th article of charge) "that the very idea of the Incarnation of the Son of God takes its rise in unbelief, and springs out of absolute infidelity," contrary to the 2nd and 8th Articles of Religion. Next, that he asserts (26th article of charge) "that the expected return of Christ to judge the world takes its rise in unbelief, and springs only out of absolute infidelity, and that such expectation is unreasonable, is opposed to the simplicity of the love of God as a Father, and is calculated to overthrow the moral government of God," contrary to the 4th and 8th Articles of Religion. And lastly, that he asserts (27th article of charge) "that the worship of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost is the worship of three Gods, and that the worship of the Son and of the Holy Ghost is idolatry, and that the belief in the Godhead of the Son and of the Holy Ghost, as expressed in the Nicene Creed, weakens and disguises the belief in one God the Father, and obliterates the true name of God," contrary to the 1st, 2nd, and 8th Articles of Religion. The Articles of Religion referred to in the above five articles of charge undoubtedly recognize the Godhead both of the Son and of the Holy Ghost as co-equal with that of the Father, and recognizes them as being with Him one God (1st Article of Religion); that the Son took Man's nature in the womb of the blessed Virgin of her substance, and that the Godhead of the Son and his Manhood are united in Christ (2nd Article of Religion); that the Son ascended into Heaven, and there sitteth until He return to judge all men at the last day (4th Article of Religion); and that the 8th Article of Religion says that the Nicene Creed, Athanasian Creed, and the Apostles' Creed are to be thoroughly received and believed. If, therefore, the last five articles of charge be proved, they are plainly repugnant to the Articles of Religion.

We think it impossible to read the following passage or extract contained in the 21st article of charge without coming to the conclusion that the 6th charge against the appellant is made out:-" And so God, the Great Unseen Creator, has wedded to Himself the great visible universe, and out of that mystical marriage has come as offspring the human family-a race of beings noble even as animals, but surpassing all we yet know of created life in being

born of God-Very God of Very God-begotten not made, a statement as true of all of us as of Him who was called the first-born among many brethren.” The extracts cited in the 21st article of charge in pp. 32 and 33 of the Appendix, clearly describes the worship of Christ as idolatrous, and thus the 7th charge made in the 24th article of charge is also established. We may cite for this purpose the following, amongst other extracts, from pp. 33, 34. "At the time when Jesus Christ, the Lord of men, appeared on earth, religious feelings towards God, in the hearts both of the Jew and Pagan, were such as to render impossible any repose in the bosom of the Creator. None could conceive of Him as even actuated by tender feelings, or as even guided by laws of justice such as were common amongst men. So the Christ in His life of pity and kindness began to be worshipped and loved as infinitely nearer and dearer to human hearts than any Deity whom men had ever worshipped before. Not only was this perfectly natural, but under the circumstances it was perfectly creditable to mankind that they should worship and adore such a one as Christ was, instead of the Jehovah known to the Jews, and the Zeus and Jupiter known to the Greeks and Romans. Since the days of some of the Psalmists, their purer ideas of Jehovah had become miserably corrupted, and a whole system of propitiatory sacrifices had taken the place of their sensible and manly devotion. . . . . But as soon as ever the notion gained ground that Jesus Christ was engaged on man's behalf, in assuaging the Divine wrath, all the love and trust of men rushed in a torrent towards Him, and they were quite content (as well they might be) to adore their Redeemer, and leave their Creator farther off than ever. I do not wonder at this. The wonder would have been if men had not clung to Christ, if they had refused to worship so glorious a manifestation of Divine love and goodness. Yet, surely this is not what Christ would have of us. I always thought that He came to bring us to God. Whatever else may be recorded in the Gospels, most surely it is there recorded that He said all He could say, and did all He could do, to make men feel the Fatherly love of God for us all, to make known the Father in Heaven, and to win back affrighted men from their ghastly dread. Jesus Christ desired and pressed upon us all to worship the Father-' His Father and our Father, His God and our God,—' and none will dare to say that He ever stepped in between men and their Maker to beguile their highest allegiance to Himself, to hide the Father's face, or to close the portals of the Father's home. Belief in all these miracles (meaning the miracles recorded in the New Testament) and in these angelic messengers, and in these wonderful births was impossible, unless there had been first in men's minds belief in an absent God, in a God who was not immediately and constantly present in the world and among men. The very idea of Incarnation itself, which means Deity coming from Heaven and dwelling in an individual man for some years implies a belief that God does not, nor ever did, dwell in the hearts of all men. This belief and a belief in other miracles are not peculiar to Christianity; they are common to all the religions of the world. The Brahmins have their nine incarnations of Vishnu, which, in their way, are splendid conceptions of Divine love and sympathy." As regards the charge contained in the 26th article of charge the following extract from p. 35 will suffice:-"But the Fatherhood of God strikes more deeply at the prevailing views than this. The common notion about the coming of a God into the world once, and His expected return to judge the

world, turns entirely upon the belief in an absent God. It takes its rise in unbelief. These notions of a God coming to dwell amongst men in human form after thousands of years' absence from them, then departing, after a short life on earth, and not returning for thousands of years more, only spring out of absolute infidelity. Men must first be convinced that God is away from them before they can adopt the idea that God has sent some one to visit them. And if that one Man who came was Very God of Very God in a sense in which all other men are not, His going away again after a short human lifetime proves that absence still more painfully; and it cannot be wondered at that His return to earth should be looked for and longed for with the most passionate eagerness of the soul. If God could leave the long ages of human life deserted by Him before the coming of Christ, and then, after the little space of thirty-three years, could leave mankind again for thousands of years more in the same desolate desertion, then He is not the Father of men, and we might then question if He is even our Friend."

Indeed, the author in an extract contained in p. 24 (articles of charge, No. 9) candidly states, "I found that I could not hold to the true Fatherhood of God if I did not give up some of the doctrines of so-called Christianity. The doctrines of mediation, intercession, atonement, isolated incarnation, and the expected return of Jesus to earth are all, more or less, opposed to the perfect harmony and simplicity of the love of God as a Father."

As regards the 10th charge contained in the 27th article of the charge against the appellant, being the last of the general class relating to the incarnation and Godhead of Christ, we think it is proved by the following passage, "Take away (that is, from the Book of Common Prayer) what we can most heartily join in, and the greater part, as well as the most important part, of the Service would be expunged. For the sake of this, then, we may well bear for a time with the blemishes, weaknesses, and minor superstitions which the Church of Rome bequeathed to us when we parted company at the last Reformation. We need not hesitate at the repetition of any creed which makes us say as its first words, 'I believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of Heaven and Earth, and of all things visible and invisible.' Any clause added, thereto which seems to weaken or to disguise the first grand utterance may well be tolerated, considering the changing times in which we live, for the sake of the cardinal, and central and most vital principle upon which all the rest is or is supposed to be based."

The four remaining charges against the appellant constitute the last general class of his alleged errors, viz. his depraving of Scripture; and they are as follows:-That the appellant has promulgated, in derogation and depraving of Holy Scripture, the doctrine that the revelation of the knowledge of God by means of any book is impossible; that all true knowledge of God comes directly from the law of God written in men's hearts; that all knowledge of God comes only from men's own sense of what He requires them to do; and that the only true revelation possible by God to man is through the sense of God's presence, and is originated in the heart of man independently of God's written Word (31st article of charge);

That he has asserted that in God's Word written, Holy Scriptures, and Holy Writ, there are found manifest, palpable, and irreconcilable contradictions, and many places which cannot be explained but so that they be repugnant to others (32nd article of charge);—

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 compósition 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