-€?S ■.'
 
 IT
 
 SPEECH 
 
 ROBERT PHILLIMORE, D.C.L., QjC.
 
 SPEECH 
 
 of 
 
 ROBERT PHILLIMORE, D.C.L., Q^C, 
 
 in the case of 
 
 « THE OFFICE OF THE "JUDGE PROMOTED BY 
 
 THE BISHOP OF SALISBURY 
 
 AGAINST WILLIAMS." 
 
 Delivered on the 9th, loth, and nth of February, 1862. 
 
 (From the Notes of the Shorthand Writer.) 
 
 And 
 
 THE CRIMINAL ARTICLES AGAINST DR. R. WILLIAMS. 
 
 London: 
 SAUNDERS, OTLEY, AND CO., 
 
 66, Brook Street, Hanover Square, W. 
 
 1862.
 
 "V/TAY it please your lordship, it now becomes my duty to 
 -^'-■- offer to the Court some reasons why the objections 
 which have been urged against the admissibility of these 
 articles should not be considered valid in law. 
 
 My lord, it is right, perhaps, at the outset that I should 
 state clearly the exact technical position in which the case is 
 now placed. The main question is debated upon the admissi- 
 bility of the articles in this case — a proceeding which resembles, 
 though it is not identical, with a demurrer at common law. 
 This circumstance, however, will give to the accused party 
 an advantage which, as appearing for the Bishop of Salisbury, 
 I by no means regret, the advantage of a reply. 
 
 My lord, the peculiar shape which these proceedings have 
 taken is well known to 3'our lordship and to those who practice 
 in this Court, and, therefore, I only make this preliminary 
 observation in order to prevent any mistake with respect to it 
 being entertained elsewhere. Having made these observations 
 as to the technical state of the case, I entirely agree with the 
 opinion often vehemently urged upon your lordship, during the 
 progress of this debate, as to the great importance of the issue. 
 My lord, stripped of the technicality of the law, the real issue 
 before your lordship may be stated in a very few words, for 
 practically and substantially it is this — Is it competent to 
 beneficed clergymen, with cure of souls, who have subscribed 
 the Articles and Formularies of the Church of England — the 
 whole object of which Articles and Formularies is to secure 
 to the people of this country the teaching of God's Word, 
 written to use the exact words of the Article — Is it competent 
 to beneficed clergymen, by what they are pleased to call 
 " remorseless criticism," to dispose of all the prophecies of the 
 Old Testament ; and by what they are pleased to call a 
 
 611743
 
 _2 — 
 
 "verifying faculty," to deny all the miracles of the New? 
 That, my lord, I say, stripped of its technicalities and of the 
 cloud of verbiage which has boon thrown over it, will be found 
 to be the real issue which your lordship has to try ; and it is 
 one, the importance of which to the Church — so far as the 
 establishment of it in this kingdom is concerned — I admit 
 cannot be surpassed. 
 
 My lord, when I say this for fear of misunderstanding, let 
 me not be supposed, for a moment, to express any doubt that 
 the Church, apart from the question of the Establishment, 
 will be uninjured, whatever may be the decision of this Court. 
 I am old-fashioned enough to believe in what in this book is 
 called "the fiction of an external revelation," and I, therefore, 
 am confident that God's promises will be fulfilled to the 
 Church. My alarm is not for her ; my apprehension is for 
 the establishment of that Church in this country ; and I do 
 entertain the most serious apprehensions that if your lordship 
 should have been persuaded by the arguments which have been 
 addressed to you to sanction such a work as this which is now 
 before you, that the establishment will indeed be in great 
 jeopardy. It will run great risk of being abandoned, not by one 
 party in the Church or by another, but by that large class of 
 the community — almost, I trust, universal — which believes 
 in the Inspiration of the Holy Scriptures. 
 
 My lord, my learned friend, Dr. Deane, who opened this 
 case with all that temper, prudence, and Avisdom which always 
 characterizes his efforts in this and every other court, gave 
 your lordship a sort of historical sketch of the proceedings 
 which had led to the proceedings in this suit. 
 
 My lord, I must be permitted to fill up the outline of that 
 sketch which was a little too barely stated by my learned 
 friend. There are some figures which must be put into the 
 foreground of that sketch, in order to do justice to the client 
 for whom I have the honour to appear. 
 
 My lord, it is said that this volume of Essays and Reviews^ 
 which I now hold in my hand, was an innocent publication — 
 a kind of closet speculation — which never would have obtained 
 any notoriety or done any injury, if the Bishop of Salisbury 
 had not instituted this suit aoaiust Dr. Williams. Some slight 
 reference was made to the fact that an infidel review had hailed 
 it as the greatest accession to this cause of infidelity which had 
 appeared for a very long while. That infidel review — I call it 
 by no name of unwarrantable opprobrium — I use the word 
 infidel in the sense in which it uses itself — the Westminster 
 Revieio denies altogether the authenticity of the Holy Scrip-
 
 turcs and the Doctrine of* Revelation. In the SGtli number 
 of that work — the number for October, 18G0 — I find in a 
 review upon what is called " Neo Christianity," a highly 
 eulogistic review of this work, Essags and lievieics. At page 
 294, are these words : " Wc speak of this book as a joint 
 production, and not as a mere collection of essays ; for such, 
 notwithstanding its outward form, it undoubtedly is. We are 
 quite aware that there is no formal connection in the argument ; 
 and VvO read in the preface that it has been written without 
 concert or comparison." At the bottom of that page the 
 reviewer says: "If, again, we speak of this book as aggressive, 
 we do so advisedly. No fair mind can close this volume 
 without feeling it to be at bottom in direct antagonism to the 
 whole system of popular belief. They profess, indeed, to 
 come forward as defenders of the creeds against attacks from 
 without, but their hardest blows fall not on the assaulting, but 
 on the resisting, force. They throw themselves into the 
 breach, but their principal care is to clear it from its oldest 
 and stoutest defenders. In object, in spirit, and in method, 
 in details no less than in general design, this book is incom- 
 patible with the religious belief of the mass of the Christian 
 public, and the broad principles on which the Protestantism of 
 Englishmen rests. The most elaborate reasoning, to prove 
 that they are in harmony, can never be anything but futile, 
 and ends in becoming insincere. All attempts to show that 
 these opinions are in accordance with Scripture, the Articles, 
 the Liturgy, or the Church, have little practical value, and do 
 no small practical harm. Such reasoning may ease the 
 conscience of troubled inquirers, but it is powerless to persuade 
 the mass that that is, after all, the true meaning of that 
 which they have been taught and have believed. Just as 
 their instinct repudiated the ingenious attempts of the 
 Tractarian writers to build a semi-Romish system on the 
 dogmas of our Church, just so it will revolt from any attempt, 
 however sincere, to graft the results and the principles of 
 rationalism on the popular Christianity of the day. Is the 
 crumbling edifice of orthodoxy to be supported by sweeping 
 away the whole of its substructure, and Christian divines 
 taught cheerfully to surrender all that the most exacting 
 criticism assails ? The mass of ordinary believers may well 
 ask to be protected from such friends, as their worst and most 
 dangerous enemies. Is it reasonable to suppose that, at this 
 time of day, the Christian world will consent to reconsider the 
 whole of its positions, to develope its cardinal doctrines into 
 new forms, and to remodel the whole structure of belief upon 
 
 B 2
 
 _4 — 
 
 an improved tlicory? Will the complicated and timo-woni 
 jneclianism bear so radical a repair? Can its pieces be reset 
 and placed in new relations, and the rusted inedireval timepiece 
 bo restored into the shape of a new watch ? Has it been all 
 a mistaken rendering that men have been believing so long ? 
 Is theology then due to a mere confusion of terms ? Can 
 religion be set right by sounder canons of interpretation, and 
 the mystery of the unknown cleared up by a more accurate 
 scholarship ? Of one thing wc may be quite sure, that the 
 public can never be persuaded to make trial of the process. 
 They, at any rate, will never be brought to believe that the 
 Bible is full of errors or rather untruths ; that it does not 
 contain authentic or even contemporary records of facts, and 
 is a medley of late compilers ; and yet, withal, remains the 
 Book of Life, the great source of revealed truth, the standard 
 of holiness, purity, and wisdom ! Yet all this our essayists 
 call upon them to admit in the very name of Revelation, and 
 for the honour and glory of the Bible itself. Let our authors 
 beware of such excessive candour, and rest assured that when 
 the public once begin to read their Bibles in that spirit, they will 
 soon cease to read them at all, and that the Hebrew Scriptures 
 will take their place upon the bookshelf of the learned, beside 
 the Arabian and Sanscrit poets. Nor, again, is it a more hopeful 
 scheme to preach to the congregations in church and chapel, that 
 the central notions of their creed, no less than the volume on 
 which they are based, have been utterly misinterpreted and 
 distorted ; yet, withal, that the creeds must regain their influ- 
 ence under new forms, as the Scriptures, through their new 
 expounders. The men and women around us are told that 
 the whole scheme of salvation has to be entirely re-arranged 
 and altered. Divine rewards and punishments, the Fall, 
 original sin, the vicarious penalty, and salvation by ftiitli are 
 all, in the natural sense of the terms, repudiated as immoral 
 delusions. Miracles, inspiration, and prophecy, in their plain 
 and natural sense, are denounced as figments or exploded 
 blunders. The Mosaic history dissolves into a mass of ill- 
 digested legends, the Mosaic ritual into an Oriental system of 
 priestcraft, and the Mosaic origin of the earth and man, sinks 
 amidst the rubbish of rabbinical cosmogonies. And yet all 
 this is done in the name of orthodoxy, and for the glory of 
 Christian truth. Nay, unwearied with destroying this great 
 edifice of old belief, our writers enter upon the gigantic and 
 incredible enterprise of rebuilding the whole again from its 
 foundations, upon the same ground plan, but with stronger 
 walls ; and after forcing the simple believer to unlearn his well
 
 conned creed, they sit down to teach it to him anew, with 
 altered words and remodelled phrases. An expurgated Iliblc 
 resumes its place; miracles, inspiration, and prophecy reappear 
 finder the old names with new meanings ; tlie harmonious 
 whole arises anew in loftier and softer outlines with the 
 cardinal features, witli a revised atonement, a transcendental 
 fall, a practical salvation, and an idealized damnation. What 
 consolation can it be to the simple believer, to be told, that 
 this inversion of his whole creed is all within the letter of the 
 Articles, and the Liturgy, and the Scripture? All the bases 
 of his creed are undermined, the whole external authority ou 
 which it rests is swept away ; the mysterious book of truth 
 fades into an old collection of poetry and legend ; and the 
 scheme of redemption in which he has been taught to live and 
 die, turns out to be a demoralizing invention of men. And 
 yet all this is done to hira to strengthen his Christianity, to 
 confirm him as a member of the Church, to give a moral 
 power to his faith, to teach him the true spirit of the Gospel. 
 It is done unto him not by the open foes with whom he has 
 long waged unequal battle to the simple watchwords of ' no 
 human reason,"' ' the region of faith," and so forth, but it 
 is done unto him by doctors, professors and divines, by those 
 who breed up churchmen and clergymen, by men who teacli 
 those who teach him and his children. We can well imagine 
 the bitterness of heart with which he must repudiate this 
 system of cure. His mental constitution cannot bear so 
 terrific a remedy. They may demonstrate the scientific neces- 
 sity of the operation they propose ; but what if he feel certain 
 of dying under their knives. Old and infirm as he is, they 
 would restore him in a Medean caldron. IMine own familiar 
 friend in whom I trusted hath lifted up his heel against me. 
 AVe are quite aware that this purpose is not the conscious 
 intention of the several writers in this book. It is quite 
 possible that it may not be that of any one of them ; but it 
 most assuredly is the spirit of the book itself. We are dealing 
 now not with the individual writers but with their book. We 
 are quite aware of broad distinctions between them ; some of 
 them may shrink from going so far in the work of destruction, 
 and some perhaps have no desire to go so far in reconstruction. 
 But these seven authors are responsible for the book, and the 
 book is responsible for the general impression it creates. Each 
 workman may single out a separate portion of the whole 
 edifice of orthodoxy, to undergo the process of demolition and 
 repair ; but he could hai'dly complain if the whole body are 
 supposed to be together pulling down the whole. If one essay
 
 — 6 — 
 
 in this volume repudiates any kind of miracle, another any 
 kind of inspiration, another shows the Mosaic cosmogony to 
 bo an undisguised invention, and another deals with the 
 Bible as Nicbuhr dealt with Livy ; is it too much to say 
 that a book has appeared which at once repudiates miracles, 
 inspiration, Mosaic history, and the authenticity of the Bible? 
 Surely, too, these writers must know that is in theology that 
 the catenary argument is so peculiarly untrustworthy. A chain 
 of theological reasoning of all other chains is no stronger than 
 its weakest part. What becomes of the Christian scheme 
 when the origin of man is handed over to Mr. Darwin, and 
 Adam and Eve take their seats beside Deucalion and Pyrrha? 
 Of wluit use can it be to talk of Articles and Liturgy, or of 
 creeds to a Protestant Church, which has been robbed of the 
 written word from which they are all deduced I" 
 
 In a later part of the review, the writer goes through this 
 particular essay of Dr. Williams's, which as I am about to 
 argue upon it myself, I will not trouble the Court with. He 
 says at page 3i0, '" In short, the truth of the narrative, and 
 the identity of the authors disappear together. It becomes a 
 medley of legend, poetry, and oral tradition compiled, 
 remodelled, and interpolated by a priestly order centuries after 
 the times of its supposed authors. And this applies to the 
 New Testament (though in a much less degree) just as to the 
 Old. The process with which classical scholars are so familiar 
 is renerved. The bits of old songs or laws are skilfully picked 
 out of the Pentateuch, which is shown to have been put 
 together under the kings by the priesthood, who recast, and 
 perhaps fraudulently invented whole books. The prophecies 
 become sermons of every vaiiety of spirit and purpose. The 
 Psalms become a sort of Hebrew anthology of every possible 
 merit and date. Thus the Old Testament is reduced to a 
 very fragmentary and very untrustworthy collection of the 
 literature of a certain Arab race. The grand spirit of Moses 
 grows as dim in the dust of centuries as that of Numa Sinai 
 moves us as little as the cave of Egeria. The primeval poems 
 are distorted into prose by some college of Pontiffs or 
 Augurs ; and the war-songs of old heroes are hammered out 
 into dreary narratives by the designing ingenuity of a caste. 
 The process does not, of course, go so far with the New 
 Testament, though it must suffer from the proximity of such 
 a neighbour. The first three Gospels were put together from 
 the floating and variable traditions of the Early Church, no 
 man knows how or when. As much might be said for the 
 ' Lives of the Saints.' The fourth Gospel, on which so much
 
 — 7 — 
 
 is rested, is very late, and certainly not by St. John. Indeed, 
 the only thoroughly authentic portion of the whole Scripture 
 seems to be the Epistles — those of St. Paul, tliat is to say, 
 for many of the others are very suspicious. In the writings 
 of St. Paul, then, we do reach a firm point, of which author, 
 date, and genuineness are ccilaiu ; but even these, unfor- 
 tunately, contain corrupt readings, and additions, or call them 
 forgeries, on cardinal points made in the early days, when the 
 Church was creating its theology." Was ever a literature so 
 provokingly unreliable ? The mind wanders over the waste of 
 waters like the dove seeking dry land. We listen for the true 
 words of the great ones of old, but they strike a dull and 
 confused utterance on the ear. Is this the book, or rather 
 collection, which these writers place in the hands of every 
 peasant and every child ? Is this the world-wide source of 
 life and truth — this the surest, noblest outgrowth of ages, and 
 the volume that they consecrate for all time and all races. 
 They answer, Yes ; and they direct us to the sublime poetry 
 of Isaiah, the touching love of the Gospel, and the noble 
 devotion of St. Paul. The world will be in its dotage when 
 these are undervalued or forijotten. But is this enouuh to 
 consecrate the volume in which they are contained, where so 
 much is uncertain, so much contradictory ? W^ill the ignorant 
 and the poor turn only to those pages, when they are told the 
 others have so much less value ? Will it be still Revelation 
 to them, when they know not of what or whom Isaiah may 
 be speaking, when they cannot be sure that they are reading 
 the true words of Christ, and when the doctrines of St. Paul 
 may possibly be spurious, and are comparatively unimportant ? 
 These writings will still be read, but in what sense will they 
 remain an exclusive standard of belief, and a- supreme guide 
 of life. It is possible that had these books been first repre- 
 sented in this character as great but unequal works, they 
 might have been thrust by habit into an exclusive respect, but 
 having been once invested with a mystical sanctity, they must 
 descend from their place of authority (if at all) to one even 
 below their due rank. The mass break idols they no longer 
 worship ; they repudiate the guides in whom they had placed 
 an extravagant trust. Our new teachers point out that their 
 idol is but wood and stone, but wish them to retain it on the 
 altar for its beauty and its age. They discredit the veracity 
 of the oracles, and think mankind will still consult them for 
 the poetry of the responses. These writers, indeed, seem 
 utterly to misconceive the entire question. Their task is 
 not to show that these writing have sublime beauties, teach
 
 — 8 — 
 
 otenial truths, and are tolerably genuine, but to show why 
 (not being ni^^stical) and being- so very unequal, and so utterly 
 uncertain, they should take their place above all other writings, 
 consecrated, canonized, and venerated. It is rather hard to 
 have the Hebrew records shown to harmonize with the full 
 stream of human thoughts, for the mere purpose of placing 
 them over and outside the whole current of which they form 
 part. We are asked to venerate the old prophets, not as seers, 
 but as poets, and then are told to venerate no other poets like 
 them. We are desired to see in the Jewish nation the 
 purpose of ages moving onwards through their history, and 
 then asked to ignore the purpose of ages moving through the 
 history of far nobler and greater nations. It is not that 
 Hebrew poetry is not great, but that Christian poetry is 
 greater ; it is not that there is nothing to be learned in the 
 history of the Jews, but that there is more to be learned in 
 the history of the Romans • or if any insist on the spiritual 
 life of nations in the history of the Church. Man for man, 
 race for race,' the comparison is hardly possible, and Dante 
 towers above Isaiah as much as St. Bernard above Samuel. 
 If this be true, the maintenance of that race, and its literature 
 in unnatural prominence under any pretence, or with any 
 theory of interpretation, is an evil and a delusion. We do 
 not want canons to interpret Scripture — we want to know 
 what makes Scripture at all ; we do not wish to learn how 
 far or how little it agrees with science — we wish it to take the 
 place that science shall assign to it. In the meantime, we 
 des^ire that if the Bible, or any part of it, be returned as Holy 
 Writ, it be defended as a miraculous gift to man, and not by 
 distorting the principles of modern science. Let them be 
 assured that there exists no middle course, that there is no 
 inspiration more than natural, yet not supernatural, no theory 
 of history agreeable to science, though not scientific ; no 
 theology v/bicli can abandon its doctrines and retain its 
 authority. The position of Scripture either rests on external 
 authority, or is a thorough perversion of a sound estimate of 
 literature. The Bible can hold its place either by a divine 
 sanction, or by glaring injustice to the other writings of man- 
 kind. The question is not whether, stripped of that sanction, 
 it is worthless, but whether other books are not equally 
 valuable. The fact is, that it retains its hold upon many 
 cultivated minds by its literary power, but that by no means 
 proves that it will do so with the uneducated mass to whom it 
 has so long been an inscrutable law. In short, the plan is 
 one which reduces the whole Bible to the position of the
 
 *' Apocrypha." The writer finishes this review by sayin"-, 
 " Excellent theories of inspiration are given by our authors, 
 with none of which are we much disposed to differ. Be it 
 the highest utterance of mankind, or the teaching of God to 
 man, through man's heart and mind ; be it the guiding prin- 
 ciple of human life, or the voice of the congregation, all these 
 plirases used in their full and natural sense, ex])ress a reason- 
 able and probably a sound theory. Such a theory, however, 
 under no reading, can establish the posi.tion of Scripture. It 
 rejects much in it, and it requires much beside it. It is not, 
 moreover, a mere question as to the use of a particular book, 
 we are not willing to quarrel about words. And some of our 
 authors when talking of Scripture, may surrender the conse- 
 cration, the authority, and even the exclusive use of it as a 
 sacred book. That concession would hardly satisfy our want. 
 The real evil would remain even if the book were not read 
 daily in the congregations, and multiplied by the million. To 
 teach in its spirit, to think in its ideas, to use its language, 
 and to judge by its standard, is, we maintain, equally con- 
 tradictory to a sound view of human history, and not much 
 less injurious to the actual progress of society. This latter 
 purpose at the very least, we think, .our authors have avowed, 
 and it is for this that we feel bound to ask all who are 
 thoroughly free to think to reject their teaching. There is 
 little use in denouncing bibliolatry, in order to encourage 
 bibliology."" 
 
 Then it ends by expressing the gratitude which all persons 
 who hold infidel opinions feel towards them — " We have no 
 desire to press this further, or to point to their distinctness 
 upon Balaam's ass, or the herd of swine, and their silence on 
 more cardinal miracles. Be it enough that they repudiate all 
 miraculous, supernatural, or arbitrary disturbance of the laws 
 of nature." It goes on to say, " Science must determine on 
 all facts ; criticism upon all events." And at last it ends by 
 saying, " All honour to these writers for the boldness with 
 which they have, at great risk, urged their opinions. But 
 what is wanted is strength not merely to face the world, but 
 to face one's own conclusions. It is well to say what one 
 really believes. It is better to believe what one really thinks. 
 Even more necessary now than courage in act is honesty in 
 thought. We need that rectitude and tenacity of mind which 
 abhors to deceive itself; and works out the issues of its rea- 
 soning without flinching and without fainting. We know the 
 cost." 
 
 This, my lord, that is a review to which my learned friend,
 
 — 10 — 
 
 Dr. Doanc, called your lordship's attention at the opening of 
 Ills speech, in phrases of this description : ho said there is an 
 infidel publication which used the old maxim of persecution, 
 ascribing to the authors opinions, and deducing from their 
 premises conclusions, which they would not adopt themselves. 
 It may bo so, my lord, but that was the first impression made 
 by the publication of this volume of Essay and Reviews, of 
 which Dr. Williams' essay is one. 
 
 Now, the next historical event of any consequence upon this 
 part of the case is, that there appeared also in a very well- 
 known paper a letter from a most accomplished, highly edu- 
 cated man, unfortunately a professed deist, Mr. Francis New- 
 man. He had rather a curious correspondence with the 
 Brahma Tumaj, to whom he wrote this letter, the object of 
 which appears to me to point out the growth of deism in 
 England. He says, " England contains too great a mass of 
 highly cultivated minds to be much influenced by any indi- 
 vidual, whatever his goodness or his powers. No great results 
 will be perceptible, until they are brought about from Parlia- 
 ment, from our universities, or from foreign reforms. These 
 seem to me likely to act in sympathy. Seven of the most 
 accomplished men in our universities have lately excited 
 scandal by a book of essays, which thoroughly abandons all 
 that used to be regarded as the strongholds of Christianity. 
 The bishops have signed a paper, unanimously condemning 
 the book. A cry is now raised, demanding that they will 
 refute it. The controversy thus raised cannot stop here." 
 That was the impression produced upon the mind of a most 
 accomplished deist. 
 
 The next thing that happened was that this book was 
 reprinted in America. How was it reprinted ? Why, by a 
 Unitarian minister ; a professed Unitarian minister, who wrote 
 an eulogy upon its contents. 
 
 My learned friend said something to your lordship also 
 about the necessity of such a work as this, in order to draw 
 back the men of Manchester and the manufacturing towns 
 from their disbelief of the Bible. He said infidel societies 
 were in the habit of pointing out to them the contradictions of 
 the Bible ; the impossibility of construing it with reference to 
 the discoveries of modern science, and the great advantage 
 that would result from the new form of belief opened by the 
 publication of these Essays and Revieics. Now, what has 
 really happened ? These Essays and Reviews have been circu- 
 lated, and are circulating while I am speaking, in the manu- 
 facturing towns, especially in Leeds. And how I At a very
 
 — 11 — 
 
 cheap rate : each essay sokl separately at a very cheap rate — 
 I beheve at a penny each. ]}ut by whom is that done ? ]}y 
 professed infidel societies. They are circulating throughout 
 the whole of our manufacturing districts at tliis moment. 
 The virus and the poison which these books contain, intelli- 
 gible or unintelligible, is at this moment being poured into the 
 veins of the manufacturing artisans of this country, and yet 
 my friend appeals to the advantage which the Essays and 
 lievietvs have conferred upon the true study of the Bible. 
 Well, my lord, these things having taken place, I now come to 
 another circumstance, which may be said to be one of .mixed 
 law and fact. 
 
 Dr. Dcane. — I am very sorry to interrupt my friend. It is 
 now my duty to say that in what my friend has been in- 
 structed to state ho is entirely misinstructed in. The same 
 report had come to our ears. I believe I am quite in order in 
 saying this ? 
 
 Dr\ Phlllhnore. — Quite so. 
 
 Dr. Deane. — My friend makes his statement, and I am 
 quite in order in making a counter-statement. The same 
 report had come to our ears, and we have employed every 
 possible means through our publishers, even to the employ- 
 ment of detectives to ascertain whether or not there have been 
 any editions, or any garbled editions circulated, and we cannot 
 find that a single edition has been circulated at Leeds or else- 
 where, either of separate essays or of the whole book. It is 
 entirely a misinstruction of my friend. We have taken every 
 means to ascertain the truth, but we find there has been no 
 such thing. 
 
 Dr. PhilUmore. — I have not any doubt that my friend is 
 right in saying the book itself has never been circulated — I 
 never spoke of editions of the book ; Avhat I said was, that 
 these Essays and Revieics had been circulated in a cheap form 
 — sold at a penny a-piece, and sold to the artisans of Leeds 
 and other towns. 
 
 Dr. Deane. — That is what I am instructed to contradict. 
 
 Dr. PhilUmore. — Very well, we need not dispute about it. 
 
 Dr. Deane. — It must not go forth as an uncontradicted 
 statement. 
 
 Dr. PhilUmore. — It will go forth as a statement I make 
 and you contradict. If my friend wishes further information 
 on the subject, I can refer to a statement by a gentleman of 
 high character (Mr. Munro), a clergyman who has been 
 lecturing at Leeds. He distinctly stated, in an address he 
 made the other dav, " That the writers of Essays and Eeviews
 
 — 12 — 
 
 liad, to his own personal knowledge, done more to swell the 
 lanks of the secularists in Leeds than their best lecturers. 
 Crowds listen to the lecturers while tliey point to that book 
 as showing that even clergy of the Church of England arc 
 virtually secularists ; crowds buy the book : and there arc 
 more copies of it in the secularist's lending library than of any 
 other work published. 
 
 My lord, before my learned friend interrupted mo, I was 
 coming to a point which, in a case of ecclesiastical scandal, is 
 one pcrliaps of mixed law and fact. I have adverted to the 
 impression made on the public mind by the authors of this book, 
 of whom six are ordained clergymen, I now call your attention 
 to the conduct of the Bishops of the Church of England. 
 The whole Episcopate of the Province of Canterbury met 
 together, and in the language which I am about to read, they 
 unanimously condemned this work. And what was the 
 language in which they condemned it ? My friend said some- 
 thing about about the gentleman to whom the letter was 
 addressed: of course it is wholly immaterial to whom the 
 bishops communicated the decision at which they had arrived. 
 That decision, which I hold in my hand, was conveyed in a 
 letter signed by the Archbishop of Canterbury and his suf- 
 fragans : " I have taken the opportunity of meeting many of 
 my Episcopal brethren in London, to lay j^our address before 
 them. They unanimously agree with me in expressing the 
 pain it has given them, that any clergyman of our Church 
 should have published such opinions as those concerning which 
 you have addressed us. AVe cannot understand how these 
 opinions can be held consistently with an honest subscription 
 to the formularies of our Church, with many of the funda- 
 mental doctrines of which they appear to us essentially at 
 variance. Whether the language in which these views is 
 expressed is such as to make their publication an act which 
 could be visited in the Ecclesiastical Courts, or to justify the 
 Synodical condemnation of the book which contains them, is 
 still under our gravest consideration. But our main hope is 
 our reliance on the blessing of God in the continual and un- 
 ceasing earnestness with which we trust that we and the clergy 
 of the several dioceses may be enabled to teach and preach 
 that good deposit of sound doctrine which our Church has 
 received in its fulness, and which we pray that she may 
 through God's grace ever set forth as the uncorrupted Gospel 
 of Our Lord Jesus Christ." 
 
 To tliat instrument is appended the signature of every
 
 — IS-— 
 
 suftragan bishop of the province of Canterl)iiry ; and afterwards 
 the province of York came to a similar resolution. 
 
 Now, my lord, I believe I am speakinij with strict accuracy, 
 when I say that never in the history of the English Churcli, 
 certainly never since the Reformation, has there been a docu- 
 ment which the unanimous censure of the Episcopate has been 
 expressed upon a work written by a clergyman. My lord, in 
 that Episcopate are to bo found, as always nmst be the case in a 
 Church founded upon the principles, upon which tlie Church of 
 England rests, men of various opinions upon subordinate 
 points. There arc to be found among them men of the highest 
 intellect, men of the greatest practical piety, and one, whom it 
 is not altogether immaterial to observe, is an admirable German 
 scholar, one who had been formerly the diocesan of Dr. 
 Williams. Well, my lord, when we speak of living authorities, 
 and when they are pressed upon the Court, in order to show by 
 their writings what is the liberty of criticism allowed to clergy- 
 men upon religious subjects, it would be impossible to leave 
 out of consideration the opinion of the United Episcopate of 
 England. I say, as a mere matter of law, under the topic and 
 head of authorities, it would be impossible to omit the mention 
 of such a circumstance as that. And I go further ; I say it 
 would be indecent, in the highest degree, to say that the Dean 
 of the Arches — the official principal of the Archbishop of 
 Canterbury — should have such an instrument as that placed 
 before him on the subject of a book which is undergoing 
 debate and investigation ; and to say that he is to set it aside, 
 as in no way influencing him as to what is the law of the 
 Church of England. 
 
 Well, my lord, rightly or wrongly, the unanimous E{)isco- 
 pate put forth that document ; and then what became the duty 
 of the individual bishop within whose diocese one of these 
 writers, so censured, had published his work ? It is said it 
 was impolitic in the Bishop of Salisbury to proceed, that if he 
 had left the book alone it would soon have died away ; that it 
 was, after all, a mere speculation, without practical object or 
 effect.- My lord, among the many ornaments of the eloquence 
 of my learned friend who spoke last — if he will allow me to 
 call him my learned friend — was that he introduced a sort of 
 rhetorical dialogue by way of informing the conscience of the 
 Court, Fas est et ah hoste doceri. Let me set a picture before 
 the Court : The Bishop of Salisbury is sitting in his palace ; 
 there comes to him a pious and honest parishioner of Broad 
 Chalk. He says, " My lord, I wish to speak to you on the 
 subject of our vicar." " What is it you have to say ? "
 
 — 14 — 
 
 " Why, my lord, he has boon preaching some very strange 
 doctrines ; it seems to me he has pretty well given up the 
 ]3ible." " ]hit how do you mean ? In what way?" " Why, 
 my lord, on Christmas Day he read to us that chapter (the 
 5yrd Isaiah) which the Church of England, by her Liturgy, 
 enjoins to be used ; and afterwards he preached a sei'mon in the 
 pulpit, in which he said it had nothing whatever to do with 
 our Lord ; that it was the work of a later Isaiah — it related 
 to contemporary events. It was, I think he said, an exploded 
 myth or some such strange expression ; and whether that was 
 so or not, the advances of modern science would show that the 
 Church was entirely mistaken in appropriating that particular 
 lesson to the circumstances of our Saviour's birth. Then 
 there was a lesson read on tho appointed day (Good Friday), 
 about Abraham offering up his son Isaac. The Vicar read us 
 the chapter in the regular way, and ho afterwards preached a 
 sermon in which he told us that when the Bible said God 
 ordered Abraham to slay his son, it meant that the Devil 
 ordered Abraham ; it was altogether a mistake to suppose that 
 Abraham had really obeyed the voice of God in that severe 
 trial of offering up his son : it was an entire mistake. In 
 fact, he had opposed the voice of God, speaking through his 
 own conscience ; and had ' mistaken the fierce ritual of Syria 
 for the voice of God.' My Lord Bishop, I said to the Vicar 
 that these things were mentioned in the New Testament by 
 our Lord and also by his Apostles, as being quite true ; and it 
 puzzled us very much to know what we were to believe. He 
 shook his head, and said something about a ' remorseless 
 criticism ' and ' a verifying faculty.' I said, ' Well, sir, but 
 we hear quite different doctrine in the adjoining parish ."" 
 'Oh, yes,' he said, 'those are things the Church generally 
 teaches ; but a great man, named Bunsen, has arisen, who has 
 disposed of all those notions we used to entertain about the 
 Old and New Testament.' " Suppose to that complaint the 
 Bishop of Salisbury has said, " I am very sorry for it, my 
 good friend ; it is very bad what you tell me, but I cannot give 
 you any redress. There is a great deal of uncertainty about 
 the law, and it is also very expensive ; very likely the thing- 
 will die away — it is only a speculation." " But," says the 
 parishioner of Broad Chalk, " What is to become of the cure 
 of my soul, which your lordship has entrusted to this gentleman 
 in the meantime ? I am very sorry, my lord, but if -that is 
 the state of discipline in the Church of England, I must take 
 leave to go to the Wesleyan Dissenting Chapel on the right 
 hand, or to the Roman Catholic Chapel on the left hand;
 
 — 15 — 
 
 because, much as tlicy differ from me, and fi-om each other, 
 they both believe that the Bible is the Word of God." 
 
 Why, my lord, if the Bishop of Salisbury had made that 
 answer to such a man, would he not have been liable to the 
 severest condemnation that could have l)een cast upon him ? 
 Would he not have forgotten that most solemn obligation 
 which, on the most solemn occasion, he had bound himself by, 
 namely, at the time when he was consecrated a bishop — that 
 he would drive away strange doctrines and heresies, God 
 helping him, from his diocese. And would it not have been a 
 matter for which he would have been liable to the censure, not 
 only of the Church of England, but of every honest man to 
 all time, if believing this document, which he, with the other 
 bishops had so signed — believing that this essay was not 
 consistent with an honest subscription to the Articles, he had, 
 nevertheless, left this gentleman with the cure of souls in a 
 parish in his diocese ? My lord, whatever the result of this 
 investigation may be, I, for one, am satisfied that the Bishop 
 of Salisbury has done simply his bare duty in bringing the 
 matter into this Court ; and that the more this act of his is 
 reflected upon, the more it will be seen to be the only one 
 which — I will not say a bishop of the Church of England — 
 but Avhich any honest man, with his obligations, could take. 
 
 My lord, I have ventured to be thus long in these preliminary 
 remarks ; which are, after all, but an answer to those with 
 which my friend opened his case. I have ventured to be thus 
 long, contrary to my usual habit ; thinking that I was entitled, 
 from the great peculiarity of the case, and the great sensation 
 which it has excited, not only in this Court, but throughout 
 the land, to put fairly before the Court and before the public, 
 the position in which the Bishop of Salisbury was placed, 
 with regard to the Rev. Dr. Williams, the Vicar of Broad 
 Chalk — a parish in his diocese. 
 
 Now, my lord, having made these preliminary observations, 
 I come to that part of the case which, I confess, is more 
 properly addressed to a court of justice. I come to consider 
 by what law the Court could cons^ider the admissibility of 
 these Articles ? And I apprehend the sources of that law are 
 to be found in the common ecclesiastical law or canon law, in the 
 canons of 1608, in the Articles, in the Liturgy, including the 
 Ordination Service, and including particular portions of Scrip- 
 ture selected for particular days, and from the interpretation 
 which has been put upon all those sources of law by decided 
 cases, and by what must be applied to all of them — namely, by
 
 — IG — 
 
 tlio r(Mi=?on of tho thino-, rcft;ronco being had to the language 
 and to the subjects of the different essays. 
 
 Deanof the Arches. —Lai nic understand you,r)r.Phillimore. 
 How tiir do you say it is competent for the Court to take cog- 
 nizance of Scripture in this case? 
 
 Dr. Phillhmre.—\i your lordship will permit me, I am 
 coming to that presently as a distinct branch of iny argument. 
 1 only stat(! now, generally, that those are the sources from 
 which', I think, the law should be drawn ; and before I have 
 finished with the exposition of those general principles, I will 
 deal with the question your lordship puts to me — viiJ., How 
 far the Court is entitled to take cognizance of the Scriptures 
 themselves. 
 
 Dean of the Arches.— I do not wish to interrupt you on any 
 account whatever, but it is a matter of such extreme import- 
 ance, and, in my judgment, of such great difficulty, that I 
 wish to draw your attention to it most particularly ; and also, 
 with reference to that question, to all that passed in the 
 Gorham Case, and the judgment of the Privy Council therein. 
 I also wish to direct your attention to this, whether it be 
 competent to the Court to confine its attention to the particular 
 parts of the Scriptures which are cited in the argument ; and 
 at the same time not to go into the consideration of the rest 
 of the Bible \ And whether the inevitable effect of that will 
 not be that the Court will be called upon to decide questions 
 of divinity, and not simply a question of a judicial nature — 
 viz., whether certain given books or articles are, or are not, 
 repugnant to the Articles of Religion, the Canons of the 
 Church, and the Liturgy itself? Now I pray you to address 
 your attention to that question with all the powers of which 
 you are master. 
 
 Dr. Phillimore. — I am very much indebted to the Court 
 for the clearness of its statement, and I can assure the Court 
 the objection itself has been one greatly considered by us before 
 the articles were given into the Court, and one upon which I 
 am prepared to state to the Court presently the whole of the 
 reasons which induced us to give in those articles. 
 
 Dean of the Arches. — I hope I have not interrupted you. 
 Dr. Phillimore. — Not in the least, but as it will come in 
 rather more conveniently for my argument a short time 
 hence — 
 
 Dean of the Arches — At any time you please — 
 Dr. Phillimore — With your lordship's permission I will go 
 on in the order I have pointed out. 
 
 The first authority to which your lordship's attention has
 
 — 17 — 
 
 been drawn, is the thirty-sixth canon, whicli your lordship 
 knows is the Canon of Subscription, still I had bettor read it 
 again : " No person shall hereafter be received into the ministry, 
 nor either by institution or collation admitted to any ecclesi- 
 astical living, nor suffered to preach, to catechise, or to be a 
 lecturer or reader of divinity in either university, or in any 
 cathedral or collegiate church, city, or market-town, parish 
 church, chapel, or in any other place within this realm, except 
 he be licensed in either by the archbishop, or by the bishop of 
 the diocese, where he is to be placed, under their hands and 
 seals, or by one of the two universities under their seal like- 
 wise ; and except he shall first subscribe to these three articles 
 following, in such manner and sort as we have here appointed." 
 The first is as to the Supremacy, which I need not read. 
 
 " II. That the Book of Common Prayer, and of ordering of 
 bishops, priests, and deacons, containeth in it nothing contrary 
 to the word of God, and that it may lawfully so be used ; and 
 that he himself will use the form in the said book prescribed, 
 in public prayer, and administration of the sacraments, and 
 none other. III. That he alloweth the book of Articles of 
 Religion agreed upon by the archbishops and bishops of both 
 provinces, and the whole clergy in the Convocation holden at 
 London in the year of our Lord God one thousand five hun- 
 dred and sixty-two ; and that he acknowledgeth all and every 
 the articles therein contained, being in number nine and 
 thirty, besides the ratification, to be agreeable to the word of 
 God. 
 
 " To these three articles whosoever will subscribe, he shall, 
 for the avoiding Qf all ambiguities, subscribe in this order and 
 form of words, setting down both his Christian and surname, 
 viz., ' I, N. N., do willingly and ex anima subscribe to these 
 three articles above mentioned, and to all things that are con- 
 tained in them.' And if any bishop shall oi'dain, admit, or 
 exercise any, as is aforesaid, except he first have subscribed in 
 manner and form as here we have appointed, he shall be sus- 
 pended from giving of orders and licenses to preach, for the 
 space of twelve months. But if either of the universities shall 
 offend therein, we leave them to the danger of the law, and his 
 majesty's censure.*" 
 
 Now, what is the meaning of " willingly and ex animo''' 
 subscribing these articles for the avoiding of all ambiguities ? 
 My lord, it is always of great importance that this canon 
 should receive a definite construction, and one that is adhered 
 to by the Court, whatever cases may come before it. It is 
 obvious that upon the construction of this canon may mainly 
 
 c
 
 — 18 — 
 
 depend the fidelity or infidelity of clergymen to their solemn 
 obligations. And, my lord, 1 am the more disposed to draw 
 your especial attention to it in the special case of these essays 
 and reviews, because I see a distinct endeavour traceable in 
 anotlu^r essay of this book to avoid that obligation in what I 
 cojisider a most dishonest manner. 
 
 This mattdr of subscrij)tion was very much debated and 
 considered in the early portion of this century in a very re- 
 markable way. There were a body of persons in holy orders 
 at that time, who had persuaded themselves that they could 
 hold Arian doctrines, and could nevertheless continue to sub- 
 scribe to the Articles of the Church of England. There was 
 a famous case of Dr. Clarke, who, I believe, was at that time 
 rector of St. James's, who was delated before the Covocation, 
 if I may use the expression. The Court will find the whole 
 report of it in CardwelFs Synodalia. He was delated for 
 using certain Arian language, but he made a recantation, which 
 was accepted. That case led to a very able publication by 
 Dr. Waterland, called, The Case of the Arian Subscription 
 Considered^ which ^^our lordship will find in the second volume 
 of Waterland's works by Van Mildert. There are one or two 
 passages which I think bear upon my present argument, to 
 which I wish to draw the attention of the Court. In page 
 284 he says, " I shall have no occasion to say anything in 
 defence of our excellent Church, as to her requiring subscrip- 
 tion ; and requiring it according to her own sense of Holy 
 Scripture; This part of the controversy has been judiciously 
 cleared and settled by two very ingenious writers : Mr. Steb- 
 bing in his Rational Enquiry , and Mr. Rogers in his Discourse 
 and Review. My business is only to begin where they end, 
 and to show that, as the Church requires subscription to her 
 own interpretation of Scripture, so the subscriber is bound, in 
 virtue of his subscription, to that, and that only, and if he 
 knowingly subscribes in any sense contrary to, or different 
 from, the sense of imposers, he prevaricates, and commits a 
 fraud in so doing. This is a cause of some moment — it is the 
 cause of plainness and security, in opposition to wiles and 
 subtleties. It is in defence, not so much of revealed, as of 
 natural religion ; not of the fundamentals of faith, but of the 
 principles of moral honesty : and every heresy in morality is 
 of more pernicious consequence than heresies in points of posi- 
 tive religion. The security and honour of our Church are 
 deeply concerned in this question. As to its security, every- 
 body sees what I mean ; and as to the honour or reputation 
 of our Church abroad, whenever we have been charged with
 
 — 19 — 
 
 Socinianisni, or Popery, or any other monstrous docrines, we 
 liad no defence so ready at hand, or so just and satisfactory as 
 this ; that our subscriptions were sufficient to wipe oft' all 
 slander and calumny. The good of the State, as Avell as of 
 the Church, is likewise concerned in this question ; because 
 there can be no security against men^s putting their own pri- 
 vate senses upon the public laws, oaths, injunctions, &c., in 
 contradiction to the sense of the imposers, if these principles 
 about Church subscription should ever prevail amongst us." 
 That is one passage. Then there is another passage at page 
 335, in wdiich the learned writer says, "I shall now briefly 
 sum up the particulars of what has been advanced above, for 
 the reader's clear apprehending of it as well as the better re- 
 taining it. The Church of England requires subscription, not 
 to words, but things, to propositions contained in her public 
 forms. Subscribers are obliged, not to silence or peace only, 
 but to a serious belief of what they subscribe to. Subscribers 
 must believe it true in that particular sense which the Church 
 intended (so far as that sense may be know-n), for the Church 
 can expect no less ; the design being to preserve one uniform 
 tenor of faith, to preclude ' diversity of opinions,' to have her 
 own explications, and none other (as to points determined), 
 taught and inculcated ; and to tie men up from spreading or 
 receiving doctrines contrary to the public determinations. 
 These and the like ends cannot be at all answered by subscrip- 
 tion, unless the subscriber give his assent to the Church's 
 forms in the Churcirs sense, that is, in the sense of the com- 
 pilers and imposers. The sense of the compilers and imposers 
 is to be judged of from the plain, usual, and literal signification 
 of words, and from their intention, purpose, or design, however 
 known : the rule for understanding the public forms being the 
 same as for understanding oaths, laws, injunctions, or any 
 other forms or writings whatever. When either the words 
 themselves, or the intention (much more when both) is 
 plain and evident ; there the sense of the imposers is fully 
 known, and there is no room left for a subscriber (as such) to 
 put any contrary or different sense upon the public forms. If 
 words be capable of several meanings, but yet certainly exclude 
 this or that particular meaning." I shall have occasion to 
 press this upon your lordship in another part of my argument. 
 "A subscriber cannot honestly take the forms in that meaning 
 which is specially excluded. For this would be subscribing 
 against the sense of the Church, at the same time that he 
 professes his agreement with it." Then he goes on to what 
 does not bear upon this — applying that to the Arian doctrines, 
 
 c 2
 
 — 20 — 
 
 " The subscription tlicroforc of those gentlemen, however 
 glossed over with the pretence of subscribing" in such sense as 
 is agreeable to wliat they call Scripture, really amounts to no 
 more than subscribing, " so far as is in their opinion agreeable 
 to Scripture," which way of subscribing not only defeats every 
 end of subscription, and stands condemned by our laws, and 
 by the express resolution of our judges, but is also absurd in 
 itself; as leaving room for any prevarication whatever, in the 
 matter of oaths or tests ; and for subscribing the Romish 
 confession, or even the Alcoran, or anything, and is, moreover, 
 explicitly condemned, even by the generality of those who 
 plead for Arian subscription." Then having gone through 
 (what I need not trouble your lordship with) a disquisition upon 
 the Greeds, Articles and Liturgy, and says a page 344, 
 " Having shown that Creeds, Articles, and Liturgy must all 
 come in, to determine in our present question, I would now 
 proceed to cite passages from our public forms, and confront 
 them with select sentences drawn from the writings of the new 
 sect, that every common reader (for to such I now write) may 
 have ocular demonstration of the truth of what I affirm, that 
 the expressions of our public forms are special, precise, and 
 determinate against the new scheme ; not general or indefinite 
 as this writer wishes, I can hardly say believes. But I must 
 first take notice of a remark which he has at page the 8th, 
 that we are obliged to subscribe only the English articles, 
 not the Latin. I know not what uses he intends by it, 
 though he intimates there may be some ; keeping upon the 
 reserve as usual, when he suspects an advantage may be taken. 
 Dr. Clarke, to do him justice, openly declared what evasions 
 or salvos he had to justify his subscribing. He considered, I 
 suppose, that, without this, it would be subscribing with mental 
 reservations which is perfect Jesuitism. But this writer per- 
 haps thinks there is no harm in it, but that it is an innocent 
 practice, and that so long as he can but invent some secret 
 evasion to himself, he need have no concern about satisfying 
 the world. To return to the matter in hand. As to the 
 Articles, English and Latin, I may just observe for the sake 
 of such readers as are less acquainted with these things, first, 
 that the Articles were passed, recorded, and ratified in the 
 year 1562, and in Latin only. Secondly, that those Latin 
 Articles were revised and corrected by the Convocation of 
 1571. Thirdly, that an authentic English translation was 
 then made of the Latin Articles by the same Convocation, 
 and the Latin and English adjusted as nearly as possible. 
 Fourthly, that the articles thus perfected in both languages
 
 — 21 — 
 
 were publishefl the same year, aucl by the lloyal authority. 
 Fiftlily, subscription was required the same year to the 
 English Articles, called the Articles of 15C2, by the famous 
 Act of the loth of Elizabeth. These things considered, I 
 might justly say with Bishop Burnet, that the Latin and 
 English are both equal authcntical." I read these passages 
 in case the Court should tliink anything turns upon the con- 
 struction of one or other of the Articles. 
 
 My lord, that was Waterland's opinion upon Arian subscrip- 
 tion. Now, my lord, there is a Bisliop Conybeare, who wrote 
 upon this subject (I cite from a book called llandolpirs Enchi- 
 ridion^ which I have no doubt the Court has seen and read), 
 it is volume iii. The passage I am about to quote from, is 
 page 240. " One thing yet remained in order to the full 
 state of this subject, and that is to consider what is implied 
 in the subscription itself; whether it expresses our assent to the 
 truth of the Articles subscribed, or be only an engagement not 
 to dispute or contradict them, I conceive it will appear by 
 what I am about to offer, that our subscription amounts to an 
 approbation of, and assent to the truth of the doctrines sub- 
 scribed. And that first, because this seems to be implied in 
 the bare act of subscribing, and we should bo understood by 
 every indifferent spectator, as approving the truth of those 
 doctrines, unless the form of subscription declares the contrary, 
 nor would any one be apt to consider them as articles of peace, 
 but as articles of doctrine. This notion is farther confirmed 
 by the very title of the articles themselves ; for they are said 
 to be framed for the avoiding diversities of opinions, and for 
 establishinii' consent touching true relioion ; but this end 
 cannot be obtained, unless they are subscribed as truths 
 assented to. What hath been here said, will receive greater 
 weioht from considerinir the declaration in the .36th Canon, in 
 which we acknowledge all the thirty-nine Articles to be agree- 
 able to the Word of God ; and consequently to the truths, 
 which we expressly receive, and not barely doctrines not to be 
 opposed. Lastl}^, let it be remembered, that the reason why 
 the clergy in particular are required to subscribe is this, 
 because they are teachers. The articles therefore, must be 
 supposed to contain doctrines to be taught and inculcated on 
 the people, and concerning which, it is not sufficient in a 
 teacher to be silent ; were the case otherwise, it would follow 
 that the people are only guarded against the errors of their 
 pastors, but not entitled to any assistance from them. But if 
 teachers are to explain and recommend these doctrines, then a 
 subscription to them must imply a belief of them ; unless it
 
 — 22 — 
 
 be maintaiiicd, that it is reasonable to recommend as true 
 what in our opinions we condemn as false." 
 
 My learned friend who spoke last, speaking on another 
 point, referred also to a passage in a work of very high autho- 
 rity of its kind, though not exactly a legal authority. He 
 referred to the very memorable debate which took place, I 
 think, in 1775, when a veiy famous application was made to 
 Parliament by certain clergymen of the Church of England, 
 to be released from the obligation of their subscriptions. 
 
 Dean of the Arches. — When was that ? 
 
 Dr. Philllmore. — In 1772, the petition was presented. 
 There is a very edifying commentary to be found on the sub- 
 ject, I must say, in the speech of a person whom ni}'^ learned 
 friend most rightly eulogised in the speech of Mr. Burke on 
 that occasion. 
 
 It will be found, my lord, in the usual edition of his Avorks, 
 in the beginning of the 10th volume. It is a fragmentary 
 speech. It is clearly the notes of what he had written out to 
 speak ; wliether he had spoken it I do not know. Nothing can 
 be more convincing than it is. It is a speech on the act of 
 uniformity. 
 
 Dean of the Arches. — Is it stated there, Dr. Philimore, that 
 that passage from Burke was on the occasion of 1772. 
 
 Dr. Fhillimore. — I will read, your lordship, the speech. 
 "■ On the petition which was presented to the House of Com- 
 mons from certain clergymen of the Church of England, and 
 from certain of the two professions of civil law and physic, 
 and others ; praying to be relieved from subscription to the 
 thirty-nine Articles as required by the act of uniformity." 
 Then there is the note : " The persons associated for this 
 purpose, were distinguished at the time by the name of ' The 
 Feathers Tavern Association,' from the place where their 
 meetings were usually held. Their petition was presented on 
 the 6th of February, 1 772 ; and on a motion that it should 
 be brought up, the same was negatived on a division, in which 
 Mr. Burke voted in the majority, by two hundred and seven- 
 teen against seventy one." So it must have been at the same. 
 
 Dean of the Arches. — The reason I asked was this — there 
 was a subsequent petition. 
 
 Dr. Phillhnore. — I was not aware of it. My learned friend 
 read a passage in which Mr. Burke ridiculed the idea of there 
 being any security in a subscription to the Bible, and said that 
 the Bible was composed of a great variety of documents, so to 
 speak ; some were in the poetry, some written at one time and 
 some written at another, and people might draw their own
 
 — 23 — 
 
 conclusions, and you would come to no uniformity at all from 
 such a subscription, lie says, in a passage to vvliicli, I think, 
 my learned friend referred, " Therefore, to ascertain Scripture, 
 you must have one article more, and you must define what 
 that Scripture is which you mean to teach. There are, I 
 believe, very few who, when Scripture is so ascertained, do not 
 see the absolute necessity of knowing what general doctrine a 
 man draws from it before he is sent down authorised by the 
 state to teach it as pure doctrine, and receive a tenth of the 
 produce of our lands. The Scripture is no one sununary of 
 doctrines regularly digested, in which a man could not mistake 
 his way ; it is a most venerable, but most multifarious, 
 collection of the records of the Divine economy." But, my 
 lord, he had said before, and in these notes of his speech ho 
 had pointed out that there was no hardship whatever which 
 justified this application to Parliament. He said, page 10: 
 " These gentlemen complained of hardships. No considerable 
 number shows discontent. But in order to give satisfaction 
 to any number of respectable men, who come in so decent and 
 constitutional a mode before us, let us examine a little what 
 that hardship is. They want to be preferred clergymen in the 
 Church of England, as by law established, but their con- 
 sciences will not suffer them to conform to the doctrines and 
 practices of that church."" That is, they wanted to be teachers 
 in a church to which they did not belong. It is an odd sort 
 of hardship. They want to receive the emoluments appro- 
 priated for teaching one set of doctrines whilst they are teaching 
 another. " A church, in any legal sense, is only a certain 
 system of religious doctrines and practices, fixed and ascertained 
 by some law; by the difference of which laws, difierent churches 
 (as different commonwealths) are made in various parts of the 
 world." Well now, my lord, this followed in the ineffectual 
 attempt of the Arians to get rid of the subscriptions by a 
 construction of their own. It followed upon it. And, there- 
 fore, 1 think it again very clearly shows the necessity of putting 
 a straightforward, honest meaning on what is meant by In- 
 spiration. 
 
 My lord, this question was much discussed, as your lordship 
 may remember, in Mr, Oakley's case, the Archdeacon of 
 Taunton's case, and Mr, Heath's case ; and, I have no doubt, 
 they will be fresh in your lordship's recollection. There is a 
 passage in Hardwicke's Articles, chap. 11, page 314, which I 
 may mention. Your lordship will find a good deal of the 
 historical part of the case set down, but I only mention it for 
 this reason, that it is a very convenient summary of the
 
 — 24 -- 
 
 different Jittcinpts which liad been made, from time to time, to 
 ftct rid of subscriptions, cither by an appeal to Parhament or 
 by the less lionest way of putting a false construction on plain 
 words, Tiie writer says, at page 22.9, some words which, I 
 think, may be read as bearing on the present case : " The 
 following period in the liistory of religion was undisturbed by 
 any organised attack upon the Articles " — that is, after this 
 petition — " or indeed upon any of the texts of doctrine put forth 
 by the English Church ; for, in spite of the coldness which 
 prevailed at the close of the last century, and in spite also of 
 a number of individuals, and the later theories of subscription 
 which are perpetually recurring, the Formularies of Faith 
 have continued to keep their hold upon the affections of the 
 country, and to answer the salutary end for which they were 
 first provided. In our own age there is, perhaps, less fear 
 than ever that the Articles of Keligion will be successfully 
 assailed by the growiug host of inisbelievers. The new life 
 which has sprung up in the hearts of individual churchmen, 
 and has propagated itself through the masses of the island to 
 the farthest dependencies of our gigantic empire, is awakening, 
 together with a deeper zeal and a more unworldly self-renm- 
 neration, a fresh love for the objective verities of religion, and 
 a cordial regard for the teaching of the past." 
 
 My lord, the question of the meaning of the subscriptions 
 to the Articles extends itself further, when the Court has to 
 consider what the meaning is of the expression in the Ordi- 
 nation Service, which w^e have had so much discussion about, 
 '' I unfeignedly believe the Holy Scriptures." The argument 
 upon the one naturally connects itself with the argument on 
 the other. 
 
 I take now, my lord, the " Ordering of Deacons." The 
 bishop says, " Do you unfeignedly believe all the canonical 
 Scriptures of the Old and New Testament ? " A . — " I do 
 believe them," Bishop. — " Will you diligently read the same 
 unto the people assembled in the church where j^ou shall be 
 appointed to serve ? " A. — " I will." Now, an argument of 
 great ingenuity, but what I may call terrible import, was 
 addressed to the Court upon this subject — and it is one to 
 which 1 venture humbly to think the attention of the Court 
 can hardly be too much directed. What do you mean when 
 you say you unfeignedly believe the canonical Scripture of the 
 Old and New Testament ? Why, any plain man would answer 
 the question very readily, I am quite certain you would not 
 ask one man out of a hundred, taking men of average under- 
 standing and average honesty, who would not say, " I mean
 
 — 25 — 
 
 to say the TJible is the inspired word of God." Ever^'body 
 would say that is the ineaiiino; of nnfeionodly believing the 
 canonical Scriptures of the Old and New Testament, which is 
 another way of saying the same thing. But it is said 
 that a person may honestly make that statement of unfeignedly 
 believing them, and yet at the same time may believe that 
 several parts of the canonical Scriptures are not Holy Scrip- 
 ture in any sense of the word at all — that is to say, that tliey 
 are human compositions entirely — that an undue reverence 
 has been ascribed to them by ignorance and prejudice, which 
 undue reverence the light of modern science has dispelled, and 
 that it would provoke a smile to talk about the personality of 
 Jonah, for instance, or many other similar cases which might 
 be put ; and, therefore, that when you say you unfeignedly 
 believe the canonical Scriptures of the Old and New Testament, 
 you are perfectly at liberty to say, at the same time, " I reject 
 this, that, and the other, from the category of inspired books." 
 AVell, but when you press a person upon that point, and 
 endeavour to show that such a statement is really to trifle with 
 the plain sense of language, and to destroy the foundation of 
 all trust between man and man, then there is a very singular 
 argument adopted, which my learned friend behind me used 
 with great ingenuity, and it is this — and I never heard one 
 to which I listened with more amazement — " Oh, yes, I 
 unfeignedly believe the Old and the New Testament, but 
 where are they ? Not in your authorised version — that is 
 not the Old and New Testament. I believe the Old and the 
 New Testament, in the originals, wherever they are to be 
 found, and I am sure I do not know where that is nor anybody 
 else." That is the argument — I do not do my learned fi'iend 
 any injustice — that is the deliberate argument which my 
 learned friend uses. So that when the bishop gives the Bible 
 to the ordained deacon, as he does aftei'\N'ards, as your lordship 
 is aware, " Then the bishop shall deliver to every one of them 
 the New Testament, sajang so and so." So that when the 
 bishop delivers the authorised version to the deacon^ — having 
 previously secured his unfeigned assent to that Bible — he goes 
 through a farce neither more nor less. It is a complete 
 mockery. The form should be altered. The form should be, 
 " Do you unfeignedly believe the original Scriptures, whatever 
 they are, and wherever they are to be found, and wherever 
 you find them?" I do not exaggerate the case in the least. 
 That is what the question should be if it is to be answered, as 
 it has been answered, in the debate on this case. INIy lord, I 
 say that, on the face of it, that is utterly and entirely de-
 
 — 26 — 
 
 structivc of all uniformity of worship throughout tho kingdom. 
 Wiiat is to prevent any clergyman saying, " The authorised 
 version says God tempted Abraham to offer up Isaac, but the 
 true version, wherever it is, agrees with ]3aron Bunsen, and 
 says that Moloch tempted Abraham to offer up Isaac, and 
 Abraham disobeyed the voice of God in his conscience in so 
 doins:." I am not exafjireratinij. That is the arsjument in the 
 very essay before you. Now look a little at the consequences. 
 If one portion of the authorised version may be got rid of 
 by the Vicar of Broadchalk, what is to prevent any other 
 clercvniau exercisinn" that much eulogised license, and fretting 
 rid of any other portion whatever of the Scripture ? Because 
 it is not the mere reading of the Scripture, if it may be after- 
 wards accompanied by a comment which destroys its effect, 
 which is the teaching which the Church of England or any 
 other Church in the world requires. It would be an idle waste 
 of breath to argue that you cannot obey the article in the 
 letter, and disobey it in the spirit directly afterwards. You 
 cannot teach by reading authorised versions to the people, and 
 then unteach by showing, in a sermon, that it ought to have 
 no effect upon them. 
 
 Let me now a little consider what the dry law may be in 
 the matter. 
 
 What is the law as to the authorized version of the Bible ? 
 
 There is a canon, as your lordship is aware, ordering " a 
 volume of the largest Bible to be in every church. That is 
 one of the canons of 1603. It is the SOth canon." The 
 churchwardens or questmen of every church and chaple shall, 
 at the charge of the parish, provide the Book of Common 
 Prayer, lately explained in some few points by his Majesty's 
 authority, according to the laws, and his Highness's preroga- 
 tive in that behalf, and that with all convenient speed, but at 
 the furthest within two months after the publishing of these 
 our constitutions. And if any parishes be yet unfurnished of 
 the Bible of the largest volume, or of the Books of Homilies, 
 allowed by authority, the said churchwardens shall within 
 convenient time, provide the same at the like charge of the 
 parish." Of course, my lord, it is quite obvious that that 
 does not refer to the present version, and for the best of all 
 reasons, that the present version was not then in existence. 
 That referred to Queen Elizabeth's Bible. 
 
 I must draw your lordship's attention a little to the history 
 of the original version. My lord, you will find prefaced to 
 Mant's Bible, a very convenient summary of the history of
 
 — 27 — 
 
 the versions. I will state to your lordship tho outline of 
 them. 
 
 The first of our English Bibles was what is sometimes called 
 Tyndall's Bible, though it was really done by Ooverdale. It 
 is a very curious piece of history, that though there were two 
 or three Bibles in the time of Henry the Eighth, there was 
 no new version of the Bible at all during the seven years of 
 Edward the Sixth, that is, no ]3iblc by royal authority, and a 
 very remarkable fact that is. I need not say anything about 
 Queen JNlary's reign. There was during that time a Geneva 
 Bible published. Then there was in Queen Elizabeth's time, 
 what is called the Bishop''s Bible, a bible prepared by Arch- 
 bishop Parker, and some of the bishops. That was the Bible 
 to which the canon referred, " the Bible of the largest volume." 
 Then there came the present authorised version, which is, as 
 the Court probably knows, James the First's version. That 
 was provided by the labours of no less than forty-seven of the 
 most distinguished Hebrew, Greek, and Latin scholars of the 
 time. Mant, says, "this is the translation of the Holy 
 Scriptures now in common use amongst us, and since that 
 time there has been no authorised version of any part of the 
 sacred volume. The excellency of it is such as might be 
 expected from the judicious care with which it was conducted, 
 and the joint labours of the many distinguished men employed 
 upon it." That, therefore, is the version which is now read in 
 all the churches, and if one looks to the authority of it, a some- 
 what difficult point, it must have been by an exercise of the 
 royal prerogative originally. It must have been one of those 
 prerogatives claimed by the Crown after the abolition of the 
 Papal power in this country. 
 
 No doubt even existed, or was ever mooted, as to the power 
 of the Crown to order the translation to be made, and it was 
 universally accepted. But it remained without legislative 
 authority, so to speak, if such legislative authority was neces- 
 sary, until the Act of Uniformity. Then observe what effect 
 the Act of Uniformity had upon it. The act made the 
 Prayer Book a part of the statute law of the land, and the 
 Prayer Book incorporated in it the whole of the Bible, or 
 very nearly the whole of the Bible, by the order of its service, 
 and by the order for the day. Therefore, take it which way 
 you will, I think the argument cannot be shaken, that the 
 authorised version of the Bible is that which is binding on 
 all persons to read in the churches. Then, my lord, how does 
 that affect the position that you may nevertheless profess 
 your belief in what is substantially a different Bible. For
 
 — 28 — 
 
 docs It not conie to that, if when you are asked to make that 
 solemn statement, that you unfoignedly believe the Old and 
 the New Serij)tures, and you do it at the time with a mental 
 reservation, that you do not mean that particular translation 
 which represents the Old and New Scriptures in your country, 
 but you are referring to something else which you have never 
 seen, are you not evading palpably and plainly the obligation 
 under which you have laid yourself? It seems to me with 
 great deference, that this is an argument which has been used 
 for the first time in my recollection in any court of justice of 
 civil or ecclesiastical law, and it is an argument which has 
 been forced upon those wlio use it, by the impossibility of 
 reconciling the doctrines which they teach with the authorised 
 version of the Bible. It is an argument therefore, which I 
 submit to your lordships, legally, morally, and religiously, 
 entirely falls to the ground. If any protection is to be sought, 
 if any shelter is to be found for opinions which would not be 
 otherwise legal by saying, as has been attempted to be said 
 during this argument, I am not contravening the Bible because 
 I contravene the authorised version, then I submit that it is 
 certainly not in the Court of the Archbishop of Canterbury, 
 that such an argument can be listened to, or that it can be 
 allowed the least weight. 
 
 Now, my lord, I will deal before I go any further (because 
 it connects itself with the last head of aro-ument which I 
 used), with the position for which I contend, viz., that certain 
 selections of Holy Scripture which are to be found in the 
 Prayer Book, are properly pleaded in these articles. 
 
 Let me draw your lordship's attention to the manner in 
 which these selections are set out, because of course whatever 
 decision your lordship may come to, it will apply to all the 
 articles of charge. It will not be necessary to repeat the argu- 
 ment in every article, I offer now one argument on the principle 
 of admitting them at all. We will take the first : The first 
 article of charge, or what may be called the first, which sets out 
 any passages from the Book itself, begins in number at the 
 seventh, and at the top of page 3, it sets out three passages, one 
 from page 60-1, one from page 82-3, and another from page 77-8. 
 For the present, I do not read those passages. Having set out 
 these passages, it, according to the decision of the Lords of the 
 Privy Council, in Burder v. Heath, proceeds to set forth, to 
 summarise, if I may use the expression, in a short statement, 
 the heresy which we aver is contained in these passages. 
 Having done that, it says, " We object to you, that you did 
 advisedly maintain or affirm, that the Bible or Holy Scripture
 
 — 29 — 
 
 is an expression of devout reason, and the written voice of tho 
 congregation, not tlie Woi'dof God, nor containing any special 
 revelation of His truth, or of His dealings with mankind, nor 
 the rule of our faith ; or that you did therein advisedly main- 
 tain and affirm doctrines, positions, or opinions, to that or to 
 the like purport and effect, and that the said doctrines, posi- 
 tions, or opinions, are contrary to, or inconsistent with the 
 sixth, seventh, and twentieth of the said Articles of religion, 
 and contrary to and inconsistent with that part of the Nicene 
 Creed which declares in substance that the Holy Ghost spako 
 by the prophets, and contrary to and inconsistent with the 
 teaching of the Church." Now, we come to the point : " As 
 contained in that portion of Holy Scripture appointed in tho 
 said Book of Connnon Prayer, to be read as the Epistle for 
 Christmas day, which is in the words and figures following, 
 to wit — " The Epistle, Hebrews, i., 1. God, who at sundry- 
 times, and in divers manners, spake in time past unto the 
 fathers by the prophets, hath in these last days spoken unto 
 us by his Son." Then it sets out the rest of that Epistle, 
 Then it sets out an Epistle which is ordered to be read on the 
 Feast of the Epiphany (Ephesians, iii., 1). " For this cause, 
 I, Paul, the prisoner of Jesus Christ for you Gentiles ; if ye 
 have heard of the dispensation of the Grace of God, which is 
 given me to you-ward : How by that revelation he made 
 known unto me the mystery." And then comes these words, 
 " As I wrote afore in few words, whereby, when ye read, ye 
 may understand my knowledge in the mystery of Christ, 
 which in other ages was not made known unto the sons of 
 men, as it is now revealed unto His holy Apostles and pro- 
 phets by the Spirit." And then it sets out the Collect. 
 Therefore, upon that article is raised that question to which 
 your lordship has drawn my attention. First of all, let me 
 clear my way by saying, that I presume your lordship's ques- 
 tion does not extend, neither does the objection extend to the 
 collect itself? I presume there can be no doubt about that? 
 It is not disputable or disputed, the collect itself may be 
 referred to. 
 
 Dean of the Arches. — As far as my own opinion goes, you 
 are perfectly at liberty to refer to the collect. 
 
 Dr. PhilUmore. — That seems to me a very great step in the 
 argument. The collect I should submit to your lordship is so 
 called because it is a collection of certain propositions deduced 
 from the Holy Scripture, applicable to that day, and put into 
 the form of a prayer. 
 
 Now comes the question, whether a court of justice — to put
 
 — 30 — 
 
 it qiiito plainly — can say this, " Inasmuch as the Church of 
 En<'land has said that two portions of Scripture should be 
 read on particular days, which ])ortions of Scripture contain 
 distinct denials of the doctrine which you have preached." I 
 am entitled to assume that, my lord, for the sake of argument, 
 " therefore your doctrine is not according to the Church of 
 England." Now, I am perfectly aware, my lord, that it is 
 the first time on which such a plea has been introduced into a 
 criminal proceeding in this court. I admit it, my lord. It 
 was done advisedly by my learned friends and myself, after 
 great consideration. 
 
 The course of argument which led us to that conclusion I 
 venture now to lay before your lordship, before I support it 
 by authorities. This is the only court (excepting, of course, 
 the diocesan courts — this court being possessed by Letters of 
 Request from the Bishop of Salisbury of the case) in this 
 country in which any heresy or spiritual offences, so to speak, 
 by the clergy, can be tried. I pass by, for the present, the 
 consideration of whether convocation has or has not lost a 
 power, which — as your lordship is aware — at the beginning of 
 the last century eminent judges thought it still possessed, not 
 only of denouncing a book, but of trying the individual writer. 
 I pass by the consideration, for the present, whether, if that 
 power did exist, the 3rd and 4th Victoria has not by necessary 
 implication taken it away ? I think I may assume that I am 
 not embarrassed in the present instance, with that considera- 
 tion in my first position, viz., that this is the only court in 
 which spiritual offences can, subject of course to an appeal, be 
 tried. That may be according to each person"'s opinion a very 
 wise or a very unwise, a very hard or a very fair state of 
 things towards the clergy and the laity ; but I am not now 
 concerned with that, I am dealing with the fact that so it is. 
 But it would be a tremendous proposition to say that the only 
 court in the kingdom which can take cognizance of an offence 
 which is charged as a denial by a clerk of Holy Writ is by 
 its forms of pleading and decisions incapacitated from receiving 
 the best evidence of the mind of the Church on the most im- 
 portant subject. 
 
 The Thirt^^-nine Articles themselves must admit the refer- 
 ence to Holy Scripture sometimes, because it is manifest (and I 
 do not think that position w^as denied by your lordship in the 
 Denison case) — it is manifest — that if terms of Scripture are 
 used, you may have recourse to Scripture to explain those 
 terms. Well, but if it should turn out on examination that 
 these " lessons" were the main teaching of the Church, if it
 
 — 31 — 
 
 should tnrn out that when the new Prayer Book was substi- 
 tuted for the mass book, after the most dehberate considera- 
 tion, the great reformers of that day put these very lessons 
 into the Prayer Book, in order that they might be able to say 
 when assailed, " there is the doctrine of the Church of Eng- 
 land," and if an Act of Parliament has made the Prayer 
 Book, which contains these lessons, a part of a statute, what 
 authority has the Court for saying, " this part of the Prayer 
 ]3ook I will read, and that part of the Pra}'er J3ook I will not 
 read V Where does the Act of Uniformity draw any dis- 
 tinction between the lessons specially appointed for the day, 
 and the collect for the day ? 
 
 Where does the Court find its principle, which induces it to 
 say, " The collect I will look at, but at the chapter referring 
 to Isaiali, liii, I will not look, pointed out as it is especially by 
 the Church, because it was predictive of our Saviour's birth — 
 ordered to be read on that day, the clergyman being amenable 
 to be articled against and punished, if he did not read it — to 
 be deprived if he persisted in not reading it, which is the fact 
 can the Court say I must shut my eyes to tliis writing, 
 and my ears to the argument that tliis portion of Scripture 
 was inserted to show that the Church considered Isaiah, liii. 
 chapter, predictive of our Lord, 
 
 My lord, I can only say, that if such be the result, it is one 
 which would go very far to establish this proposition — that 
 there are direct offences against the doctrine of the Church of 
 England for which there is no tribunal in the kingdom to 
 which they are amenable. Of course it would be a very 
 different thing if the constitution in its wisdom had said, " up 
 to a certain point the court of law shall try, after that point 
 the archbishops or bishops, or the bishops' assessors shall try," 
 but if it has not said that you are absolutely reduced to this 
 proposition, which with great respect be it said, approaches 
 almost to absurdity, that by an accident here is an Ecclesias- 
 tical Court which cannot derive its knowledge of the doctrine 
 of the Church of England from a portion of that Prayer Book 
 which an Act of Parliament established, though it is shown 
 that that portion was put into the Prayer Book for the express 
 pnrpose of teaching the doctrine. I think that is a very 
 dangerous, and, with reverence be it said, an absurd position. 
 
 Now, my lord, before I go further upon this head, I will 
 just show the Court quo animo, at all events, (according to the 
 best authorities) these lessons were made part of the Prayer 
 Book. There is fortunately the best authority on this point, 
 and that is the authority of the person who advised the intro-
 
 — 52 — 
 
 tluction of tlicsc lessons — I refer to I'Jisliop Cosin, That learned 
 and excellent prelate has left some valuable notes on the Prayer 
 Book, which have been recently reprinted. I will refer to autho- 
 rities on this point, if my statement is questioned ; but, for the 
 sake of not wasting unprofitably the time of the Court, I make 
 tiie statement now: Bishop Cosin, was one of those who were 
 (Muployed by Convocation to draw up the Prayer Book before 
 it was submitted to the lcf;islature. I am speaking now of 
 the last Prayer Book of 1G62. Bishop Cosin had before that 
 time a great deal to do with the other Prayer Book with 
 writing notes upon it, and preparing it, and so on. The book 
 to wliicli I now refer, the Court will find in tlie fifth volume of 
 liis works, publislied in a work called Library of Anglo Catholic 
 Theology. It contains notes on the Book of Common Prayer, by 
 John Cosin, Lord Bishop of Durham. In page 189, he is speak- 
 ing of the " proper lessons." The Court must put some interpreta- 
 tion on the word " proper lessons." Proper for what ? Proper for 
 inculcating the history and the doctrine of the special festivals 
 to which they refer, he says " Whitsunday, First Lesson at 
 Evensong Wisdom i., which is appointed to be read, in regard 
 of these words that are contained in that chapter, ' Spiritus 
 Domini replevit orbem terrarura, fcc' which is the introit in 
 the order of Sarum for this festival Monday in Easter week, 
 at morning prayer, Exodus, xvi. This lesson is appointed to 
 be read in reference to the Sacrament of the Eucharist at this 
 time of Easter generally celebrated, whereof the manna was a 
 type, and wherein the words of the Psalmist are verified, 
 Portas coeli orperuit Dominius et fluit illis manna panem 
 coeli dedit eis, panem angelorum manducavit homo. Psalm 
 Ixxxiii., 25, 26. There is the like reason for the appointment 
 of the first lesson of Evensong, Exodus, xvii., concerning the 
 water of the rock, a type of the blood of Christ, whereof we 
 drink in that Sacrament, 1 Corinthians, x. And they all 
 drank of the same spiritual rock, and that rock was Christ. 
 Psalm Ixxxi., 16. And he fed them with honey out of the 
 stony rock. Good meditations theie upon the Sacrament that 
 we receive at Easter Monday, in Whitsun week. Genesis, xi. 
 Upon Whitsun eve they wont (by the order of Sarum)" — your 
 lordship knows the Salisbury Missal Avas the one which laid 
 the foundation chiefly of the Prayer Book) — "to say this 
 prayer in the Church of England " Prjesta qusesumus Domine 
 ut gentium facta dispersio divisione linguarum ad unam 
 confessionem Tui nominis coelesti munere congregetur per 
 Dominum nostrum, &c., and from hence was this lesson 
 appointed to be read." That is one of the passages at page
 
 — 33 — 
 
 190, he gives the proper psalm for Ascension-day, chosen 
 chiefly for these words contained in the psalm — " Thou art 
 gone up on high, Thou hast led captivity captive." I should 
 say these notes are divided into three categories: there was the 
 first series of notes in the Book of Common Prayer of 1619, 
 there was the second scries in the book of 1838, and a third 
 series in the manuscript, and now, in page 247, he speaks of the 
 epistles and gospels generally upon the principle of their admis- 
 sion, and he uses what I consider very remarkable words, show- 
 ing how they followed antiquity where it had not been corrupted 
 by Rome in the composition of the Prayer Book. He says, 
 " Post hsec comraentaria apostolorum et scripta prophetaruiri 
 legentur. Just. Mart. Vocat haec Tertullianus foraenta fidei, 
 ab interlectione Scripturarum." Then there follow these 
 words, " Ex quo pra?terea liquet lectiones eas e Scriptura 
 sumptas quse tempori congruereut." Thus these portions of 
 Scripture were selected which suited the particular occasion. 
 Then follows, at the bottom of that page, " Justissimis causis 
 veteres christiani commentaria de rebus Christi (qua? ad 
 explicandam illustrandam et confirmandam doctrinam a 
 Christo commuciatam pertinent," and so forth. Whatever 
 the value of it may be, here is a distinct statement that the 
 selections are made for what purpose I To illustrate, to 
 explain, to confirm the doctrine. They therefore must be 
 evidence of that doctrine. At page 420, there is another and 
 rather important passage concerning Daniel, xiii. Your lord- 
 ship knows one of these very charges is connected with the 
 denial of the predictive element in Daniel. " In October, 
 concerning the 6th of Exodus ; in November, concerning the 
 26th and 24th chapters of Ecclesiasticus, come from the order 
 of King James and his bishop upon the exceptions taken by 
 the Puritans against the lessons formally appointed by law in 
 the conference at Hampton Court." 
 
 Now, I appeal to this statement as very strong historical evi- 
 dence, that the lessons were inserted in the Prayer Book, as di- 
 rectly conveying doctrine. They were objected to by the Puri- 
 tans when the matter was arranged. Some were rejected, some 
 were retained ; and retained and rejected on what ground ? 
 On the ground that they contained the teaching of the Church. 
 " Whereupon," says Cosin, " we have now that proclamation 
 set at the beginning of this book, which before his time we 
 had not ; neither was it lawful to make any alterations in the 
 Liturgy, but by the whole Convocation and Parliament, as it 
 should seem by the Act of Uniformity. Then there is, at 
 
 D
 
 — 34 — 
 
 pai^o 422, Proper Lessons on the Sundays, as in the Act of 
 Uniformity it is appointed, with one alteration or addition of 
 certain lessons, to bo used in every Sunday in the year. For, 
 in the former edition bf this book, there were no proper lessons 
 set, but only for the high festivals and holydays. And that 
 they were emj)loyed to make this alteration, seem not to have 
 been mindful of a clause in the preface (which they suffered to 
 staud tliere still), when is faulted the very same thing that is 
 here now ordered — as the book of Essay to begin in Advent, 
 and the book of Genesis in Septuagesima." It is sufficient 
 for me to show the author's view, and why the lessons are put 
 in. I need not go into detail. There is another passage to the 
 same effect, at page 503. 
 
 My next reference is to Bishop Comber, who is also a very 
 ^reat authority on the Prayer Book. I do not believe he was 
 on the Committee of Convocation, but he was one of those 
 who took a very active part in the preparation of the Prayer 
 Book, and his book is called A Companion to the Temple, or a 
 Help to Devotion in the daily use of the Common Prayer. It is 
 a well-known book. I am quoting from the edition of 1G79, 
 vol. ], page 2-32. He is speaking upon the lessons, and he 
 says, " The Church hath done her part in compliance with the 
 designs of God's mercy and providence," and so forth. Then 
 he says, " And lest any should pretend ignorance, the Go- 
 vernors and Lights of the Church have carefully translated 
 the Original Scripture into all languages, that every nation 
 might hear in their own tongue the wonderful works of God. 
 (Acts, ii., 11.) After which pattern our Church hath made 
 that elaborate, exact, and faithful translation into the English 
 tongue, the like to which is not in any nation. And now the 
 Scripture truth learned our language, that it may instinct us 
 in our own words ; and it must be wilful negligence if we do 
 not understand it ; to prevent which, we are enjoined to hear 
 or read it every day, both at morning and at evening prayer, 
 according to the practice of the Jews, who read the law in 
 their synagogues, however, on the Sabbath, and on other days 
 they stated no food till they had read a section of it either in 
 public or private ; and every man knows how solemnly and 
 constantly this hath ever been done in all the assemblies of 
 the Christian Church. For hence they confirmed their 
 opinions in doctrine, and learned lessons, in holiness, in con- 
 versation. I had rather your own observation should inform 
 you, than spend time to tell you how carefully this church 
 hath selected the most practical and pertinent chapters —
 
 — 35 — 
 
 omitting the more difficult, or rather remitting them, to private 
 consideration when you liavo more leisure. The lessons suited 
 to the solemn festivals are determined, and do either explain 
 the mystery, relate the history, or apply Ifhe example unto us." 
 They were chosen for no other object, to teach the doctrine of 
 the Church. They were sanctioned by the Act of Uniformity, 
 and were put in for that very purpose, to explain the mystery, 
 relate the history, or apply the examination of the Holy Writ ; 
 and, my lord, their aim would bo entirely defeated, if it was 
 competent for a clergyman of the Church of England to say 
 this, " I may read Isaiah, liii., as predictive of our Lord, in 
 the lessons ; I may preach against it in the evening or in the 
 morning." Where would be the doctrine of the Church of 
 England if that could be holden ? You would be establishing 
 it on the one hand, and throwing it down with the other. If 
 it be true that these portions of Scripture were selected for the 
 purpose of teaching the doctrine of explaining the mystery, 
 may you say then, " These, I know, were put into the Prayer 
 Book to show that the prophecy applied to our Lord ; but I 
 will dispute it, and show it did not, and you shall not punish 
 me in any ecclesiastical court, because you cannot cite that 
 part of the Prayer Book which contains the selection put in 
 for the purpose of teaching the doctrine." 
 
 I will now refer your lordship to Wheatley — no mean 
 authority on the Book of Common Prayer — pages 124-6. 
 " Of the Lessons," he says, " our hearts being now raised up 
 to G od in praising and admiring Him in the Psalms, we are in 
 a fit temper and disposition to hear what He shall speak to 
 us by His Word. And thus to a respite or intermission is 
 given to the bent of our minds ; for, whereas, they were 
 required to be active in the Psalms, it is sufficient, if in the 
 Lessons, they hold themselves attentive. And, therefore, now 
 follow two chapters of the Bible — one out of the Old Testament, 
 the other out of the New — to show the harmony between the 
 law and the Gospel ; for what is the law but the Gospel fore- 
 showed ? What the Gospel, but the law fulfilled ? These are 
 exactly the points in issue in the present case. 
 
 That which lies in the Old Testament, as under a shadow, 
 is in the New brought out into the open sun ; things there 
 prefigured, are here performed. And for this reason the first 
 lesson is taken out of the Old Testament, the second out of 
 the New ; so that the minds of the hearers may be gradually 
 led from darker revelations to clearer views, and prepared by 
 the vails of the law to bear the light breaking forth in the 
 Gt)spel. He then has a section showing the antiquitv of the 
 
 D 2 ■'
 
 — 36 — 
 
 practices of the lessons. He has another section — Section S — 
 on the uses of the lessons, and shows why some were admitted 
 and some selected. "Very many cliapters in Ezekiel are 
 omitted, upon accourft of the mystical visions in wliich they 
 are wrapt up. Why some others are omitted, does not so 
 plainly appear, though, doubtless, the compilers of our Liturgy 
 tliouglit tliere was suflicient reason for it. After all, the 
 canonical hooks of the Old Testament are read through (except 
 Isaiah ; which, being the most evangelical prophet, and con- 
 taining the clearest prophecies of Christ, is not read in the 
 order "it stands in the Bible, but reserved to be read a little 
 before and in Advent, to prepare in us a true faith in the 
 mystery of Christ's incarnation and birth, the commemoration 
 of which at that time draws nigh)." My lord, I ask, as a 
 matter of common reason, can any court reject this argument, 
 even if the Court thinks it could not look at the contents of 
 the chapter of Isaiah? can it resist the argument, proved 
 abundantly upon proper evidence, that that chapter of Isaiah 
 was put in as predictive of our Lord — that it was taken out of 
 its usual course in the Bible, and put in as connected with the 
 collect of Advent (which your lordship is of opinion can be 
 used) — taken, advisedly, out of its own place in the Bible, and 
 inserted into this particular place in the Prayer Book ? 
 Wheatley goes on in the next paragraph as follows : " In con- 
 formity to so general a practice, the Church of England still 
 continues the use of these books in her public service ; though 
 not with any design to lessen the authority of canonical Scrip- 
 ture." Well, that is about the Apocryphal books. He says 
 then, " Nor is there any one Sunday in the whole year that 
 has any of its lessons taken out of the Apocrypha." He 
 then says, '• The course of the first lessons appointed for 
 Sundays, is difterent from that which is ordained for the week- 
 days. For from Advent Sunday to Septuagesima Sunday, 
 some particular chapters out of Isaiah are appointed for the 
 aforesaid reason. But upon Septuagesima Sunday, Genesis is 
 begun, because then begins the time of penance and morti- 
 fication, to which Genesis suits best, as treating of the original 
 of our misery by the fall of Adam, and of God's severe judg- 
 ment u}ou the world for sin. For wliich reason, the reading 
 of this book was affixed to Lent, even in the primitive ages of 
 the Church. Then are read forward the books as they lie in 
 order ; not all the books, but (because more people can attend 
 the public worship of God upon Sundays than upon other 
 days) such particular chapters are selected as are judged most
 
 — 37 — 
 
 edifying to all that are present. And if any Sunday be (as 
 some call it) a privileged day — i.e., if it hath the liistory of it 
 expressed in Scripture — such as Easter Day, Whit Sunday, 
 &c. — then are peculiar and proper lessons appointed." 
 
 Archbishop Seeker wrote an Explanation and Defence of the 
 English Liturr/y. 
 
 The edition I am citing from is an old one of 1792, but I 
 do not know that there is a more recent one. It is volume iii,, 
 of his works, page 32 : he says, " then we offer up the collect 
 for the day, of which I have spoken alrc^ady, and after it, read 
 two portions of Scripture, to which it hatli frequently a refer- 
 ence. One of them is usually taken from the Epistles, the 
 other always from the Gospels. The Epistle hath been thus 
 read certainly for 1,'}00 years, but the Gospel much longer. 
 And the very portions that we now use, were most of them used 
 on the same days, 1,200 years ago, and perhaps a great deal 
 earlier. The annual course of them, and of the collects prefixed 
 to them, began then, as it doth now, not with the civil year, or 
 the entrance of the sun into this or that sign ; but from the 
 advent, the approach of the appearance of Christ, the Sun of 
 Righteousness. And it was so contrived, that the former part 
 from his birth to his ascension, should represent to us the 
 principal articles of history, the latter those of our own duty." 
 That is in volume iii. There is a passage in volume ii. It is 
 a sermon on the reliance on the Spirit of God, It is volume ii., 
 page 622. " The order in which the books of both Testaments 
 are read, is that in which they stand. Only in the Old, the 
 prophet Isaiah, containing the fullest predictions of Christ's 
 coming and kingdom is placed at the approach of his nativity ; 
 and in the New, tlie Gospels and Acts are the lessons for the 
 morning, and the Epistles for the afternoon. In this manner 
 we make provision for every day in the year ; and hence one 
 great recommendation of daily attendance on public prayers 
 (when there are opportunities for it), is that by means of it 
 we shall proceed regularly through the sacred writings, and 
 preserve the due connection of the several discoveries made in 
 them to man. But for the first lessons on Sundays, those 
 chapters of the Old Testament are selected, which appeared to 
 be most useful. The second lessons being from the New, there 
 was no necessity, and little room for choice. And to holidays, 
 such portions of both are adopted as best agreed with the 
 occasion." 
 
 I refer also to a passage in Jeremy Taylor's Hohj Liting 
 and Dying, chapter iv., section 1, towards the end of the
 
 — 38 — 
 
 cii^litli para,<^rapli. " Tlio wisdom of the Church of God is 
 veiy reinarkablo in appointing? festivals or holy days, whose 
 solemnities and offices have no other special business but to 
 record the article of the day, such as Trinity Sunday, Ascen- 
 sion, Easter, Christmas Day ; and to those persons who can 
 onlv believe, not prove or dispute, there is no better instru- 
 ment to cause the remembrance and plain notion, and to 
 endear the affection and hearty assent to the article, than the 
 proclaiming and recommending it, by the festivity and joy of 
 a holy day." And in the same book, section 6, paragraphs 9 
 and 10, " What the Church hath done in the Article of the 
 Resurrection, she hath in some measure done in the other 
 articles in the Nativity of the Ascension, and of the descent 
 of the Holy Ghost at Pentecost ; and so great blessings deserve 
 an anniversary solemnity, since he is a very unthankful person 
 that does not very often record them in the whole year, and 
 esteem them the ground of his hopes, the object of his faith, 
 the comfort of his troubles, and the great effluxes of the 
 Divine Mercy greater than all the victories over our temporal 
 enemies, for which all glad persons usually give thanks. And 
 if with oreat reason the memory of the Resurrection does 
 return solemnly every week, it is but reason the other should 
 return once a year. To which I add, that the commemoration 
 ef the articles of our creed in solemn days and offices, is a very 
 excellent instrument to convey and imprint the sense and 
 memory of it upon the spirits of the most ignorant person. 
 For as a picture may with more fancy convey a story to a 
 man, than a plain narrative either in word or writing ; so a 
 real representment, and an office of remembrance, and a day to 
 declare it, is far more impressive than a picture, or any other 
 art of making and fixing imagery." He ends by saying, " The 
 memory of the saints are precious to God, and therefore they 
 ouo-ht also to be so to us ; and such persons who serve God 
 by holy living, industrious preaching, and religious dying, 
 ought to have their names preserved in honour, and God be 
 glorified in them ; and their doctrines and lives published and 
 imitated ; and we by so doing, give testimony of the commu- 
 nion of saints." There is one more passage from Jeremy 
 Taylor. It is taken from the preface to the apology for 
 authorised and set forms of Liturgy, section 87. (It is Heber's 
 edition, volume vii., page 308.) He says, " Certain it is, that 
 there is no part of religion, as it is a distinct virtue, and is to 
 be exercised by interior acts and forms of worship, but is in 
 the offices of the Church of England." Then he goes on, and
 
 — 39 — 
 
 says, " When the revolution of the anniversary calls on us to 
 perform our duty of special meditation and thankfulness to 
 God for the glorious benefits of Christ''s incarnation, nativity, 
 passion, resurrection, and ascension (blessings which do as well 
 deserve a day of thanksgiving, as any other temporal advan- 
 tage, though it be the pleasure of a victory), then we have the 
 offices of Christmas, the Annunciation, Easter, and Ascen- 
 sion." 
 
 Now, my lord, these are the authorities which I have 
 selected from others, that might be quoted to prove this pro- 
 position, that the Church had a distinct object and meaning 
 in choosing certain portions of Scripture for certain great 
 historical and scriptural events. She had, as the object of her 
 teaching, the actual truth of these events, and also the 
 spiritual meaning in them, and the Act of Uniformity authorised 
 the lessons proper for holy days, and certain days. The fact 
 of that being so, cannot be withdrawn from the contemplation 
 of the Court ; the Court therefore cannot refuse to take cogni- 
 zance that for certain holy days, certain lessons were appointed. 
 I am now, my lord, arguing it not with respect to the general 
 selections of Scripture for the whole year round, but upon the 
 lesser ground of certain holidays having certain proper lessons 
 appointed to them, and it seems to me, that if the Court were 
 of opinion that it could not look into the lessons which, so to 
 speak, are not called " proper," but which are a mere division 
 of the Bible, so as to cause it to be read somehow or another 
 throughout the whole year, that a different consideration 
 would apply to the duty of the Court with respect to selected 
 lessons. Proper Lessons, as they are called, but I should have 
 a right to say the Court must put a construction on these 
 words " Proper Lessons," that construction must be, that they 
 were proper for a particular event celebrated on that day. It 
 was proper that Isaiah liii. should be read on Good Friday, 
 as predictive of our Lord, and if that was proper, it must be 
 highly improper in a clergyman to deny that there is any 
 prediction whatever of our Lord in Isaiah liii. I do not know 
 that I can press the argument further, and I am afraid it does 
 not have great weight with your lordship. 
 
 Dean cf the Arches. — I beg you to understand, Dr. Philli- 
 more, that I have given no opinion on it. I say it is a very 
 difficult question with reference to the judgment of the Gor- 
 ham case. 
 
 Dr. Phillimore. — I am obliged to your lordship for remind- 
 ing me. I will say a word with regard to the Gorham case.
 
 — 40 — 
 
 I am now roacliiiG; from a very accurate report of the Gorham 
 case, in the Notes of Cases, vol. vii., page 482 
 
 Dean of the Arc/ies.—lt is tlie part of it, Dr. Phillimore, in 
 wliich the l*rivy Council talk of open questions. That is the 
 passage more particularly. You unJerritand distinctly, I give 
 no oj)inion on this question whatsoever. 
 
 JJr. PhllUmore. — The passage is, " And if it were supposed 
 that all points of doctrine were decided hy the Church of 
 England, the law could not consider any point as left doubtful. 
 Th" application of the law, or of the doctrine of the Church 
 of England to any theological question which arose, must be 
 the subject of decision, and the decision would be governed by 
 the construction of the terms in which the doctrine of the 
 Church is expressed, viz., the construction which, on the whole, 
 would seeem most likely to be right. But if the case be, as 
 undoubtedly it is, that in the Church of England many points 
 of theological doctrine have not been decided, then the first 
 and great question which arises in such cases as the present, 
 is whether the disputed point is, or was meant to be settled at 
 all, or whether it is left open for each member of the Church 
 to decide for himself according to his own conscientious 
 opinion. If there be any doctrine on which the Articles are silent, 
 or ambiguously expressed, so as to be capable of two mean- 
 ings, we must suppose that it was intended to leave that doc- 
 trine to private judgment, unless the Rubrics and Formularies 
 clearly and distinctly decide it. If they do, we must conclude 
 that the doctrine so decided is the doctrine of the Church. 
 IJut, on the other had, if the expressions used in the Rubrics 
 and Formularies are ambiguous, it is not meant to be concluded 
 that the Church meant to establish indirectly as a doctrine, 
 that which it did not establish directly as such by the articles 
 of faith, the code avoAvedly made for the avoiding of diversities 
 of opinions, and for the establishment of consent touching true 
 religion. We must proceed, therefore, with the freedom which 
 the administration of the law requires, to examine the Articles 
 and the Prayer Book, for the purpose of discovering what it is, if 
 anything, which, by the law of England, or the doctrine of the 
 Church of England as by law established, is declared as to the 
 matter now in question." My lord, the difficulty which would 
 arise in your lordship's mind, would be from this, from their 
 having used the words " Rubrics'" and " Formularies " only iu 
 the former part of what I have read, for they go on to say, 
 that they must exempt the Articles in the Prayer Book. I 
 think I need not tell your lordship, and I believe I am accu-
 
 — 41 — 
 
 rate in saying so, that no question of this kind was raised 
 before the Privy Council. The contention that the doctrines 
 might be derived from proper lessons appointed by the Prayer 
 Book apart from the Bible generally, was not raised in the 
 Gorham case before the Privy Council, to the best of my 
 belief. It does not appear that there was any decision on that 
 particular point throughout the judgment — that is, to the best 
 of my belief. One argument occupied an octavo volume, and I 
 cannot say it was not there ; but, to the best of my belief, that 
 particular point of law, being deducible from Proper Lessons 
 selected by the Prayer Book for particular festivals, was not 
 raised ; and therefore it cannot be considered, I think, that 
 the case of Gorham against the Bishop of Exeter is a decision 
 one way or other on this point. I think Courts are in the 
 habit of saying, " that point was not brought before us, and 
 when we use expressions like the ' Fornmlaries ' and the 
 ' Rubric,'' and afterwards use the word Prayer Book in extenso, 
 that will not bind our hands at all with regard to an argument 
 hereafter to be brought before us, that inference was to be 
 drawn from the Selection and from the Proper Lessons." Tiie 
 Rubric would rather come in aid than otherwise. The " Les- 
 sons proper for the Holydays " would strictly be within the 
 Rubrical definition. They would be set out, and are set out, 
 as proper for Holydays by the Rubric itself, and by the For- 
 mularies. And then the question would be — whether, when you 
 take the one example which I have insisted upon (the Isaiah 
 liii.) the Proper Lessons for Good Friday — must a court of 
 law stop there, and not say what that Proper Lesson contains ? 
 Dean of the Arches. — It is a question of immense difficulty, 
 and the consequences are such as are quite alarming. I say 
 again, I give no opinion till I have given it the deepest consi- 
 deration in my power ; but I do not at present see if I admit 
 the whole of this to be read — the Lesson that is cited here — 
 how can I exclude from consideration in this case any part of 
 the whole Bible, which the other side may think fit to bring 
 in, in illustration of the doctrine therein contained. The 
 Court will then be in this position, and a fearful position it is 
 even to think of for a moment — not to decide a judicial ques- 
 tion of whether the doctrine laid down by Dr. Williams is 
 conformable to the Articles, or to the Prayer Book, com- 
 paring one with the other, but whether it is conformable to the 
 extracts from - the Bible, and to the whole Bible bearing on 
 these extracts. Where I am to put the limit, where I am to 
 shut the door on that argument, at present T do not see. You
 
 — 42 — 
 
 must feel, I am sure, as I feel, the extreme difficulty of em- 
 barking on such a voyage. 
 
 J)r. PhiUhnore. — Yes, my lord, I do feel it strongly ; and 
 if I thought my position necessarily led to the bringing in the 
 whole Bible, so to speak, into controversy before your lordship, 
 I should argue it with less confidence than I do ; but it does 
 not appear to me to be necessarily attended with that result, 
 because the answer would, with great submission, be this — I 
 put it in as few words as possible : " You say there is no 
 prediction of Our Saviour in Isaiah, liii. ? — A. There is not. 
 Prove it as to that particular chapter selected for Good Friday. 
 — A. That is no proof; I will show you other parts of the 
 liiblo which say it is not so." Then I think the door is shut 
 against that, because the answer will be, " Show me, from 
 other portions of Scripture selected, that Isaiah, liii., was not 
 intended to contain a pi^ediction of Our Lord, and you may do 
 so because you are within the range of the Prayer Book. I will 
 mention besides this consideration, though it increases perhaps 
 the legal difficulty of the case. I have been appealing to the 
 portions appointed to be read in the Bible, not directly set out 
 in extenso in the Prayer Book, but ordered to be read. Sup- 
 posing it is a Gospel or an Epistle, by what authority can the 
 Court refuse to look at the Gospel and the Epistle, which is 
 part of the Prayer Book, and which is part of the statute ? Is 
 there any argument which might exclude a reference to the 
 Old Testament generally, and would not extend to the case 
 where the portion was actually in the Prayer Book itself 
 set out ? 
 
 That would be another of the difficulties which surround the 
 subject no doubt, but it would be a very difficult position 
 legally to maintain. Here is a book which the statute says I 
 must read. I will read as far as the Collect, and there I 
 will stop. 
 
 No, I say, I beg your lordship's pardon — you must go on, 
 and read what follows the Collects. Where can you find any 
 authority for reading one part of a statute and not reading the 
 other part ? 
 
 Dean of the Arches. — That is the very difficulty. Dr. Philli- 
 more ; because nearly the whole of the Bible, with the excep- 
 tion of Leviticus and part of the Apocalypse, is ordered to be 
 read on certain days. 
 
 Dr. Phillimore. — It is remarkable that portions were 
 excluded upon the express ground that they were not edifying 
 to the common people, and therefore they were not put in. I
 
 — 43 — 
 
 may observe, in passing, that the particular difficulty which 
 your lordship is supposed to be subject to about Bell and tlie 
 Dragon is wholly immaterial, because Bell and the Dragon, in 
 the Apocrypha, is not one of the portions appointed to be 
 read. 
 
 Dean of the Arches. — Wo will leave that out. 
 
 Dr. Phillimore. — And it is another reason that the Apo- 
 crypha could never be used for the purpose, because the terms 
 of the Article exclude it at once, therefore it is not to be used 
 in the proof of doctrine. 
 
 Mr. Fltzjames Stephen. — I explained that if the Church 
 reads that or anything else, it is some intimation of the 
 Church's intention . 
 
 Dr. PhiUlmore. — As far as the Apocrypha is concerned, 
 that, of course, could not be used ; the terms of the sixth of 
 the Thirty-nine Articles itself shut it out. Subject to the 
 assistance which I shall derive from my learned friend's own 
 confirmation of this argument, I am not prepared with any 
 other authorities, or any other reasons, beyond those that I 
 have taken the liberty of urging at some length upon the 
 Court. 
 
 Dean of the A rches. — You have done perfect justice to your 
 client. Dr. Phillimore, and you have assisted the Court very 
 materially. 
 
 Dr. Phillimore. — I am very much obliged to your lordship 
 for saying so. 
 
 I have said thus much, my lord, upon the question of the 
 admissibility of those selections of Scripture into the Articles 
 of Clergy. It becomes me now to condescend, as they would 
 say in Scotland, upon the Articles themselves, and to offer a 
 defence for them. But, before I do so, there are some general 
 observations as to certain general positions which have been 
 advanced upon the other side, which I had better dispose 
 of now. 
 
 My lord, it has been said very often that the object of this 
 prosecution is really to stifle discussion, to put an end to 
 criticism and examination of the Scriptures. I think the 
 expression was "to prevent the clergy from using their minds." 
 It is an opposition to reason, it is said. To that, my lord, we 
 have one answer — that reason, and what is in these days 
 called rationalism, are totally distinct things. The highest 
 exercise of reason — we think in common with the greatest 
 thinkers in this country — is to know where reason must be 
 silent, and bow before Revelation. But in order, my lord,
 
 — 44 — 
 
 that tho prosecutor may not be represented, as ho has been, as 
 a person, the object of whose prosecution is really to prevent 
 tho clergy of this country from fairl}^ arguing all matters that 
 may coiiio before them, which are consistent within the limits 
 which tlie law has imposed ; and in order to put it in the 
 best light before the Court, instead of using my own language, 
 I would refer the Court to the language of a very great man, 
 and one whom I rather think the Court itself is familiar with 
 — namely, the language of Bishop Horsley, who certainly 
 was not only a very great divine, but a most accomplished 
 scholar, in every sense of the word ; a great rhetorician, and 
 a great logician. He preached a very remarkable sermon 
 upon this subject (his fourteenth sermon) in the cathedral 
 church of Gloucester, at a public ordination of priests and 
 deacons ; and he took this very subject for his discussion, and 
 he took a text from the Epistle to the Corinthians, " For I 
 liave determined to know nothing among men save Jesus 
 Christ and Him crucified." And in my edition, vol. 1, page 
 1.98, Bishop Horsley used these expressions, which I would 
 crave leave to borrow for the occasion : " This sketch of the 
 characters of the false teachers in the Corinthian Church, and 
 the sort of doctrine which they taught, is the key to the 
 Apostle's meaning in many passages of this Epistle, in which, 
 as in the text, he may seem to speak with disparagement of 
 wisdom, learning, and eloquence, as qualifications of little 
 significance in a preacher of the Gospel, and as instruments 
 unfit to be employed in the service of Divine truth. In all 
 these passages, a particular reference is intended to the arrogant 
 pretensions of the false teachers, to their affected learning and 
 counterfeit wisdom. It was not that, in the Apostle's judg- 
 ment, there is any real opposition between the truths of reve- 
 lation and the principles of reason, or that a man's proficiency 
 in knowledge can be in itself an obstacle in the way of his 
 conversion to the Christian faith, or that an ignorant man can 
 be qualified to be a teacher of the Christian religion, which 
 are the strange conclusions which ignorance and enthusiasm, 
 in these latter ages, have drawn from the Apostle''s words ; 
 but he justly reprobates the folly of that pretended wisdom 
 which, instead of taking the light of revelation for its guide, 
 would interpret the doctrines of revelation by the previous 
 discoveries of human reason. And he censures the ignorance 
 of that learning which imagines that the nature of the self- 
 existent being, and the principles of his moral government 
 of the world, are in such sort the object of human knowledge,
 
 — 45 — 
 
 as like the motions of the planets or the properties of light, to 
 be open to scientific investigation ; and he means to express 
 how little is the amount, and how light the authority, of the 
 utmost wisdom that may be acquired in the schools of human 
 learning in comparison of that illumination which was imparted 
 to him by the immediate influence of the Divine Spirit, the 
 fountain of truth and knowledge on his mind." My lord, 
 that sermon was preached upon the occasion of the Ordination 
 of Priests and Deacons ; and I believe it contains exactly the 
 Bishop of Salisbury's opinion upon the question of what has 
 been called the use of reason by the clergy, in the criticism 
 and examination of the Scriptures. 
 
 My lord, something was said to your lordship, I think, in 
 the course of the argument, by my learned friend ; I remember 
 something was said that you were to sit hero more as a judoo 
 of criticism than as a judge of law. My lord, we are not 
 contending in any way whatever — in no one fragment of 
 these articles can it be found that we have ever put forward 
 the position, either directly or indirectly, that the fullest 
 criticism, and that the most unfettered use of reason, may not 
 be applied to understanding the oracles of God ; but what we 
 have said in substance is this — that if, under the mask of 
 criticism, and under the garb of interpreting the Gospels, you 
 arrive at conclusions and publish conclusions which are wholly 
 inconsistent with the Doctrines and Formularies of your 
 Church, then you ought to leave your office in that church. 
 It matters not by what road you have arrived at them — 
 whether you call it criticism or whether you call it interpre- 
 tation — if they have brought you to the conclusion that the 
 doctrines of your Church are false, then you ought to leave 
 that Church in good faith, remembering the terms of your 
 subscription. There is a passage to which, I think, I need 
 only refer in passing, in vol. 2 of Van Milderfs Sermons on 
 the Boyle Lecture^ at page 1 64, in which he puts forth an 
 answer to Toland. And a remarkable circumstance it is, 
 and I shall presently be obliged to call your lordship's 
 attention to it, that most of the arguments which are to be 
 found in this volume are identical with those which are to be 
 found in Tindall, and Chubb, and Woolston, and all the 
 exploded trash of the deists of the beginning of the last 
 century. My learned friend said something about somebody 
 having written an article in the Quarterly Review^ wondering 
 at the novelty of these doctrines. Certainly, if the wznter did 
 so, he was an exceedingly ill-informed person, for there is not
 
 — 46 — 
 
 one single position there that has not, from the time of 
 Porphyry down to the time of Woolston, heeu asserted over 
 and over auain by heretics who have opposed the sound 
 doctrine an(l teacliing of the Church. Van Mildert was 
 opposing Toland, and he said, " What then says the unbe- 
 hever ? " and he quotes ToLand's Christianity not Mysterious. 
 But what then, says the unbeliever, is the property of reason ? 
 is it altogether useless, or are we to be precluded from using 
 it in these most important of all concerns for their security 
 against error." 
 
 (The argument was practically adopted by my learned 
 friend yesterday.) " Our answer is, that we do not lessen 
 either the utility or the dignity of human reason by thus 
 confirming the exercise of it witliin those natural boundaries 
 which the Creator himself had assigned to it. We admit, 
 with the deist, that ' reason is the foundation of all certitude ; ' 
 and we admit, therefore, that it is fully competent to judge of 
 the credibility of anything which is proposed to it as a Divine 
 revelation ; but we deny that it has a right to dispute (because 
 we maintain that it has not the ability to disprove) the wisdom 
 or the truth of those things which revelation proposes to its 
 acceptance. Reason is to judge whether those things be in- 
 deed so revealed, and this judgment it is to form from the 
 evidence to that effect. In this respect it is the foundation of 
 certitude, because it enables us to ascertain the fact that God 
 hath spoken to us. But this fact once established, the cre- 
 dibility — nay, the certainty of the things revealed — follows as 
 of necessary consequence : since no deduction of reason can be 
 more indubitable than this, that whatever God reveals must 
 be true. Here, then, the authority of reason ceases. Its 
 judgment is finally determined by the fact of the revelation 
 itself; and it has thenceforth nothing to do but to believe and 
 to obey." And, my lord, I say once and for all, that if this 
 Dr. Williams, who is the Vicar of Broad Chalk, had been an 
 unbeneficed clergyman, without a cure of souls, it might have 
 been within the Bishop of Salisbury's duty to have simply said 
 to him what the great Bentley said to his predecessor (from 
 whom he has borrowed so much without acknowledgment), 
 to this very deist, Collins, " I hope that this gentleman who, 
 by the little smattering of his learning and his great self-conceit, 
 has lost his religion, may find it again by a harder study and 
 a humbler mind." 
 
 I wish to make one general remark here, applicable to 
 all the authorities which were cited upon the other side, 
 and I do this with strict reference to the law. It ia repre- 

 
 — 47 — 
 
 sented, and within certain limits it is no doubt truly repre- 
 sented, that your lordship and the Privy Council have both 
 holden that where there is reasonable doubt as to the construc- 
 tion of the terms of an Article, the fact that eminent divines 
 have holden a certain opinion without being blamed for it, lets 
 in the liberty, if I may use the expression of a clergyman, and 
 within certain bounds, and with certain reasonable qualifica- 
 tions, no doubt that may be said to be a proposition of law, I 
 call your lordship's attention, with reference to tliat remark to 
 this observation of mine. In all the long catalogue of autho- 
 rities which were cited to you on the four former days, not 
 one single authority professed the opinions which are laid 
 down in this Essay, The system adopted was, as I shall 
 show in detail, to set up a great name, to cite a great work, to 
 prove that a particular opinion had been entertained by that 
 person — not the opinion of the Essayist, and then to argue 
 that if he might entertain that opinion, the Essayist mioht 
 maintain his. But I may venture to draw your lordship"'s 
 attention to the fact that a solitary position which a clerk 
 might advance without being blamed, certainly without being 
 prosecuted, in four or five volumes, in the rest of which there 
 was nothing whatever to cavil at, is a very different thing 
 from publishing an Essay in which almost every position is 
 reprehensible, and the object of which is obviously to under- 
 mine the doctrines of the Church, I call your lordship's 
 attention, so far as the authorities were cited, to this single 
 observation, namely, that they do not bring the case within 
 the shelter which was given by Burder and Heath, and the 
 Gorham case. They were, if I may use the expression, autho- 
 rities set up to be knocked down. 
 
 Now, my lord, there were three, and most remarkable they 
 were, which were produced as containing opinions approxi- 
 mating to those of Dr. Williams. What are the authors to 
 them ? The one was a Nonconformist, the other was a Pres- 
 byterian, and the other was a Plymouth Brother, One was 
 Dr. Chalmers, of whom I am sure I would wish to speak, as 
 every educated man must speak, with great admiration ; but 
 he is no authority whatever for a question of the doctrine of 
 the Church of England, for he belonged to Presbyterian 
 Church of Scotland, and it would be as idle to press our 
 Thirty-nine Articles upon him as to press his Westminster 
 confession on us. He is clearly no authority on a question of 
 doctrine. The other was Baxter, who refused altogether, as 
 Mant will tell you if you look at his Preface of the Common 
 Prayer Book, to have anything to do with the compilation of
 
 — 48 — 
 
 the Oominou Prayer Book, and broke off his connection with 
 the Couinii.ssion because he insisted upon pressing his opinions, 
 which were utterly at variance with those of the Churcli of 
 En<dand upon certain points. You will find that matter 
 stated at length in the Preface to Mant on the Common 
 Prayer JJook, and I will just show your lordship the exact 
 words upon tliat point. At page 5 of the Introduction, he 
 says, " These Commissioners had several meetings at the 
 Savoy, but to very little purpose ; the Presbyterians heaped 
 together all the old scruples that the Puritans had for above 
 one hundred years been raising against the Liturgy, and, as if 
 they were not enough, swelling the number of them with many- 
 new ones of their own. To these, one and all, they demanded 
 compliance on the Church side, and would hear of no contra- 
 diction even in the minutest circumstances. But the com- 
 pletest piece of assurance was the behaviour of Baxter, who 
 (though the King's Commission gave them no farther power 
 than of comparing the Common Prayer Book with the most 
 ancient Liturgies that have been used in the Church in the 
 most primitive and purest times, requiring them to avoid as 
 much as possible all unnecessary alterations of the forms and 
 Liturgy wherewith the people were altogetlier acquainted, and 
 had so long received in the Church of England) would not so 
 much as allow that our Liturgy was capable of amendments, 
 but confidently pretended to compose a new one of his own, 
 without any regard to any other Liturgy whatsoever, either 
 modern or ancient, which, together with the rest of the Com- 
 missioners on the Presbyterian side, he offered to the Bishops 
 to be received and established in the room of the Liturgy. 
 Such usage as this we may reasonably think must draw down 
 the disdain and contempt of all who were concerned for the 
 Church, so that the conference broke up without anything 
 done, except that some particular alterations were proposed." 
 Baxter, therefore, is not a very good authority to cite on a 
 question of the doctrine of the Church of England. And who 
 is the other? Why Dr. Tregelles, who is a Plymouth 
 Brother. 
 
 Mr. Fiizjames Stephen. — I quoted him as being opposed to 
 Dr. Williams. 
 
 Dr. Phillimore. — He is a Plymouth Brother, and why I 
 know it, I must tell my learned friend, because it is only right 
 to do so. I never saw the gentleman in my life ; but he has 
 written to me a most violent letter of remonstrance upon some- 
 thing that ray learned friend is reported to have said in the 
 newspaper.
 
 — 49 — 
 
 Dr. Deane. — You are not singular in that ; we have all had 
 letters of remonstrance from him. 
 
 Dr. PhilUmore. — I dare say you have ; hut Dr. Tregelles 
 writes indignantly to say that he does not hold those opinions ; 
 but whoever he is, he begins his letter by saying, " I am 
 not a member of the Church of England." My learned friend 
 says, I quote him as opposed to Dr, Williams. That is what 
 I say: authorities are put up to be knocked down. 
 
 Now, my lord, the next observation tliat applies generally 
 to all these authorities is, that if you look at the particular 
 crotchet, if I may use the expression, which they are sup- 
 posed to maintain, which is adduced to justify all the heretical 
 opinions of Dr. Williams, you will find that the particular 
 crotchet is always qualified afterwards, and modified by sub- 
 sequent limitations. 
 
 M.y lord, these are some general remarks upon the authori- 
 ties that are cited on the other side ; and now I must make 
 another general remark upon the Articles as they stand ; and, 
 in order to do that, I must invite the Court's attention to 
 the sixth Article of the Indictment, and to the one which has 
 incurred so much censure, " the scope and tendency " Article 
 — the seventeenth. 
 
 The sixth Article, it is said, is utterly irrelevant. It is 
 this : — "• We article and object to you, the said Reverend 
 Rowland Williams, that the said articulate Essay or Review, 
 entitled Bunsens Biblical Besearches, has not, during the nine 
 editions aforesaid, undergone any, or at least any material or 
 substantial alteration, but is, in all of them, exactly, or almost 
 exactly, in the very same words as it was when first published 
 by you." And they say, " What is the meaning " of that 
 Article? It cannot be denied that the statements in these 
 Essays have alarmed and offended the public mind of this 
 country ; that they have called forth the unanimous censure 
 of the Episcopate, and even, my lord, I heard yesterday an 
 explanation offered in this Court of the plain language of Dr. 
 Williams, which appeared to me a denial of the most sacred 
 mysteries of our religion. 
 
 I heard this explained away by suggestions of my learned 
 friend, that the words meant something quite different, that 
 they meant Roman superstition, that they meant no Popery, 
 that they were capable of this, that, and the other explana- 
 tion, speaking with all respect of the argument; but, be that 
 explanation what it may, how many editions has this volume 
 gone through without any attempt on the part of a beneficed 
 
 E
 
 — 50 — 
 
 clergyman witli a cure of souls to suggest what he really did 
 mean ? Is that Jefonsiblo conduct on the part of a clergyman 
 to know (and it is not denied at the first blush that his words 
 justify this charge), it, to know that a constrnci'ion^priind facie 
 justifiable, has been put upon his language, that it is at 
 variance with the cardinal verities of the Christian religion, 
 and to allow nine, ten, and eleven editions of the work to go 
 on without a note, without a suggestion, without a hint to 
 any creature who may have lost, who may have been robbed, 
 though I do not believe, God forbid I should say so with Dr. 
 Williams' own goodwill, but who may have been robbed of all 
 that sustains life, and takes the sting from death, by reading 
 this work ? ]3ut he has not even had the courajje or the sin- 
 cerity to explain a single objectionable passage. I put in this 
 article as to the edition, for this reason, because I think 
 it ought to weigh greatly in the sentence which this Court 
 may come to, whatever that sentence may be, upon Dr. Wil- 
 liams for having published this work. If it had not been done 
 advisedly, if all this pernicious trash had been written hastily 
 and imprudently, and had been repented of, as Dr. Clarke 
 repented of his Arianism, and as men of greater minds than 
 Dr. Wilhams, before now, have written and sorrowed for it 
 afterwards, why that would have given the prosecution a 
 totally different aspect, and would also have affected the 
 amount of the punishment also, whatever that may be. But 
 there is no suggestion of the kind, and I deny that it is 
 competent to Dr. Williams to suggest by his advocate a totally 
 different meaning to the plain words which he has used, when 
 he might at any time have amended them if that really was 
 his meanino; — when he midit and ought to have so stated 
 that amendment in one of the numerous editions of the work 
 which he has published. 
 
 My lord, I say this in connection with an observation which, 
 perhaps, I ought to have made at the outset, but which I did 
 not. Your lordship will remember, that there is a great 
 peculiarity in the way in which the law is laid down in this 
 case in the first article. We have not pleaded the statute of 
 Elizabeth. I have designedly, with the sanction of the Bishop 
 of Salisbury, abstained from doing so, and why 1 Because I 
 do think that the statute of Elizabeth is a harsh statute ; 
 because it was made in a very different state of circumstances 
 long ago ; because I have always doubted myself whether it was 
 intended to be applied to heresy generally ; and lastly, because 
 if we had succeeded in our prosecution under the statute of
 
 — 61 — 
 
 Elizabeth, it would have left the Court no option whatever, 
 but deprivation ; it would have tied the hands of the Court ; 
 it would have given no locus penitentice whatever to the person 
 proceeded against, and it was not my desire to place the Court 
 in that predicament, I was acting for the Bishop of Salisbury, it 
 was not his desire to cut oft" all hope of repentance from Dr. 
 Williams. That observation connects itself with the fact, as to 
 the number of editions which have been published without any 
 attempt to alter any of the oftensive passages. 
 
 Now, my lord, I come to the seventeenth article, which may 
 be said to be the first of our articles, and the seventeenth 
 article may be coupled with the general argument perliaps 
 as to the distinction between a review and a sermon, which 
 the Court may have to deal with. 
 
 Now, the seventeenth article pleads " that the manifest ten- 
 dency, scope, object, and design of the whole essay, is to incul- 
 cate a disbelief in the Divine inspiration and authority of the 
 Holy Scriptures, contained in the Old and New Testament ; to 
 reduce the said Holy Scriptures to the level of a mere human 
 composition, such as the writings of Luther and of Milton; 
 to deny that the Old Testament contains prophecies or predic- 
 tions of our Saviour, and other persons and events ; to deny 
 that the prophets speaking under the special inspiration 
 of the Holy Spirit foretold human events ; to deny altogether, 
 or greatly discredit the truth and genuineness of the historical 
 portions of the Old Testament, and the truth and genuineness of 
 certain parts of the New Testament, and the truth and reality 
 of the miracles recorded as facts in the Old and New Testament ; 
 to deny, or interpret by a meaning at variance with that of the 
 Church, the doctrines of original sin, of infant baptism, of 
 justification by faith, atonement, and propitiation by the death 
 of our Saviour, and of the incarnation of our Saviour." Now, 
 it is objected, my lord, that we have no right to have an 
 article of this kind which is to be a sort of dragnet Article 
 to the whole prosecution, and that we have no right to set out 
 what the tendency, and" scope, and object, and design of the 
 work are, and it is said that this is a distinctly criminal pro- 
 secution, and the conunon places — I make use of this expres- 
 sion with all deference to those who have used them — but 
 what I must be allowed to call all the common places upon 
 that subject, are now produced, no doubt it is a criminal 
 prosecution, but it is the criminal prosecution of a clergyman 
 for an heretical work. And is it in reality meant to be 
 intended, that the scope, and tendency, and object, and design 
 
 e2
 
 — 52 — 
 
 of an lieretical work, are not matters which one Ecclesiastical 
 Court must take into its consideration ? Is it meant to be 
 said, that if on reading a particular work, it is impossible to 
 arrive at any other conclusion than this, that the author 
 intended to subvert Christianity, the Court is not to take 
 cognizance of tliat scope, object, end, and design ? My lord, it 
 is not like a criminal indictment at common law in that 
 respect with regard to its subject matter. It would perhaps 
 be utterly impossible to frame it in all respects according to 
 that analogy. This is a question of the correction of a 
 clerk, and if a clerk is really guilty of publishing a work, 
 the scope and design of which is manifestly to destroy Cln-is- 
 tianity, I hear for the first time that upon that being proved 
 to the satisfaction of the Court, he is not liable to eccle- 
 siastical punishment. 
 
 Now, it is quite true that the publication takes the form of 
 a review, and it is quite true that this form gives the defenders 
 of the publication a great advantage. You may always say you 
 are quite in a mistake. I do not say tliis. The author says, 
 I do not say these horrible words which I really hardly now 
 like to repeat, but which are in this essay. " How long sliall 
 we bear this fiction of an external revelation f It is quite true 
 that it is only Baron Bunsen says that, and a clergyman cites 
 him. And how does he cite him ? With approbation or with 
 reprobation I Does he say this horrible language is such as a 
 clergyman of the Church of England ? I repudiate, and I 
 have only reviewed the work in order to show my horror, that 
 there should be found any man pretending to be a Christian, 
 who could use such language ? That is what one might have 
 expected him to have said, if he had had any regard to his 
 position, if he had thought for a moment of the terrible conse- 
 quences to others, if not to himself, from reading such a work 
 as this. But what does he say, and this is an illustration, and 
 I use it as an illustration of the sort of difficulty into which 
 the argument that it is the author''s language, and not the 
 reviewer, may place the prosecutor. So, when he asks, at 
 page 92, "How long shall we bear this fiction of an external 
 revelation V that is, putting it in his own language, of " one 
 violating the heart and conscience, instead of expressing itself 
 through them V or when he says, " All this is delusion for those 
 who believe it. But what is it in the mouths of those who 
 teach it f or when he exclaims, " Oh, the fools ! who if they 
 do see the ignorant perils of this age, think to ward them o'ff 
 by narrow-minded persecution !" and when he repeats, " Is it
 
 — 53 — 
 
 not time, in truth, to withdraw the veil from our misery ? to 
 tear off the mask from hypocrisy, and destroy that sham 
 which is undermining all real ground under our feet ? to point 
 out the dangers which surround, nay, threaten already to engulf 
 us V Does the clergyman go on to say, " This is language so 
 abominable, that I can onlj^ mention it to reprobate it V No. 
 He says, " There will be some who think his language too 
 vehement for good taste. Others will think burning words 
 needed by the disease of our time. These will not quarrel on 
 points of taste with a man" — (now mark, " with a man" who 
 has declared that the fiction of an external revelation is not 
 intolerable), "with a man," says Dr. Williams, "who in our 
 darkest perplexity has reared again the banner of truth, and 
 uttered thoughts which give courage to the weak, and sight to 
 the blind." There is the teaching of an English clergyman 
 in a review upon a man who has said, " How long shall we' 
 bear this fiction of an external revelation." He goes on to 
 say, " If Protestant Europe is to escape those shadows of the 
 twelfth century, which with omninous recurrence are closing 
 around us, to Baron Bunsen will belong a foremost place 
 among the champions of light and right; any points disputable, 
 or partially erroneous, which may be discovered in his many 
 works, are dust in the balance, compared with the mass of 
 solid learning, and the elevating influence of a noble and 
 Christian spirit. Those who have assailed his doubtful points, 
 are equally opposed to his strong ones. Our own testimony 
 is where we have been best able to follow him, we have gene- 
 rally found most reason to agree with him. But our little 
 survey has not traversed his vast field, nor our plummet 
 sounded his depth." And then there follow, my lord, certain 
 doggrel verses, and you are gravely asked, " To what article of 
 the Church are these'doggrel verses opposed?" Why the ques- 
 tion is unworthy of my learned friend's ability. The question 
 is, whether in poetry or prose, however bad both may be, and 
 in my opinion both are equally execrable, the question is, 
 whether he has expressed his agreement with the author. 
 That is the pinching question, not how miserable the vehicle 
 may be in which he has conveyed the sentiment. Why, what 
 has he said ? After eulogizing Baron Bunsen as having dis- 
 covered this new version of Christianity, he says — 
 
 " And when those fables strange our hirelings teach 
 I saw by genuine learning cast aside. 
 Even like Linneeus kneeling on the sod. 
 For faith from falsehood severed thank I God."
 
 — 54 — 
 
 Well, now is .inybody so blind as not to sec, I would almost 
 say, is anybody foolish enough to urge that by " our hirelings 
 teach," he does not mean the clergy of the Church of England, 
 and by " those fables strange," he docs not mean the usual 
 authorised versions of the Holy Scriptures. Can any body 
 doubt that for a moment? What is the "genuine learning," 
 Avliich has cast them aside ; try the question as a poet, or try 
 it as a person of common sense, what is it that " genuine 
 learning" has "cast aside." "The fiction of an external 
 revelation." And am I to be told that a clergyman of the 
 Church of England may do these things with impunity ; and 
 that, because he has not expressed in a distinct proposition, 
 " I deny entirely the prophecies of the Old Testament, and 
 the miracles of the New," he is not amenable to an Ecclesias- 
 tical Court for the general scope, tendency, and design of that 
 article? No, my lord, and I wait with deference, but with 
 confidence for your decison upon that point. 
 
 My lord, that article, as I said, raises a general question as to 
 this Essay or Review^ which I wish to put in this way — I deny 
 at once that it is competent to a clergyman of the Church of 
 England to review every book he pleases, in every manner he 
 pleases. There is an expression in these very essays about 
 Baron Bunsen " sitting loose to the articles,"— but Baron 
 Bunsen never subscribed the Thirty-nine Articles — and if 
 Baron Bunsen choose to build a fabric, as the people in Laputa 
 did, by beginning at the top instead of at the bottom, and 
 thought he had done a very wise thing, when, poor man, he had 
 merely repeated all the exploded heresies of the last century, 
 he was perfectly at liberty to do it. It is most gratifying to 
 me to learn (though I learned it subsequently to Dr. Williams'* 
 censure), that Baron Bunsen in his private devotions belied 
 his public works, and I hope and believe died a good Christian 
 — but that is by the way — Baron Bunsen might review or 
 write what he liked, but I deny that a clergyman of the 
 Church of England might write or review what he liked. 
 Supposing there was a grossly obscene and indecent book in a 
 foreign language, and a clergyman reviewed it, and extracted 
 all the most offensive passages, and then said, " There are 
 some who think these are too vehement for good taste," and 
 there left it, he would be liable to be punished. I maintain 
 that it would be conduct unbecoming a clergyman, and bring- 
 ing great scandal upon the Church, and I have the highest 
 authority for saying, that a scandal upon the Church may 
 enure even to deprivation of preferment.
 
 — 55 — 
 
 Tlien, my lord, take the next case, may a man review an 
 avowedly infidel work, bearing upon its title page that it is 
 an infidel work, and written avowedly for the purpose of 
 subverting Christianity, may he review it and escape from all 
 condemnation, because he had only translated it so as to make 
 legible throughout England, and in his own parish all the 
 horrible doctrines that are therein, but has not gone on to say 
 totidem verbis " I approve V I say he may do no such thing. 
 I say again he would have brought scandal upon the Church, 
 and would have been punishable, and therefore it comes to a 
 question of degree, and the question is, whether a man may 
 review a work not exactly of that character which I have 
 described, neither professing indecency, nor professing absolute 
 infidelity, but substantially and really teaching it. May 
 he abstract those passages which are most objectionable, 
 and speak of them either with no disapprobation, or with 
 words which are practically and fairly considered as amounting 
 to approbation ? I say again that I take issue upon that ; I 
 say that he may not. 
 
 Now, my lord, the Review in question extends from the 
 49th to the 93rd page, and it is said to us (and this is the 
 proper time to deal with that objection), you have not made 
 fiiir extracts, you have taken a passage out here, and you have 
 added it to a passage there, and so on. Now what have we 
 done ? In the first place, which is at once an answer to the 
 whole charge, we have appended the whole book to the articles, 
 it is part of the articles, it is incorporated in them ; by the 
 eighteenth article it is appended in toto. " In part supply 
 of proof of the premises in this and the preceding articles 
 pleaded, and to all other intents and purposes in the law, 
 whatsover we exhibit hereto annex and will that the same be 
 taken and read as if herein inserted, a printed copy of the said 
 book entitled, Essays and Reviews. In the next place, we 
 have invariably given the pages from which we have extracted 
 the articles. It is very true that as the writer is a singularly 
 bad writer, and as he is in the habit of writing in a manner 
 which it is very difficult every now and then to understand, 
 and as he has scattered his mischief over a great many pages, 
 it is very true that in order to satisfy the legal requirements 
 of a Court we have been obliged here and there to take a 
 passage from this page and a passage from that page, but we 
 have invariably given the pages at the same time, and we have 
 shown from whence they come, and it was competent for my 
 learned friend at any time he pleased to contend that you
 
 — 56 — 
 
 ought to read it with such and such qualifications. We read 
 tlieso qualifications, and we were not able honestly to say, with 
 more than one or two insignificant exceptions, that they in 
 the least allrct the truth of'the proposition. Well, in other 
 cases I should have thought that we had erred upon the other 
 side, we have copied pages and pages of this trash, and at full 
 length, and I should liavc thought that if we have erred at 
 all, we really have erred upon the side of making too copious 
 extracts. However, it is almost impossible in these cases to 
 avoid the censure of those who have an author to defend, and 
 who think that by omitting this passage or that passage his 
 explanation might have been afforded. To that I have this 
 answer to make. If the Court is of opinion that we ought to 
 state any more than we have in order to lay our case fairly, 
 we are perfectly willing if that will gratify my learned friends 
 to have any quantity of the Essay reprinted ; provided we are 
 allowed to keep tlie passages we have, and to make our 
 summary of the doctrine. The first extract, according to the 
 seventh article, is taken from the 60th and 61st pages. The 
 Essay begins at page 50, and the 60th and 61st pages have 
 been preceded by what I may call an admonitory statement. 
 We are told by the writer (and this is his own opinion), at 
 the very first page, that, " Questions of miraculous interference 
 do not turn merely upon our conceptions of physical law as 
 unbroken, or of the Divine will, as all pervading ; but they 
 include inquiries into evidence, and must abide by verdicts on 
 the age of records. Nor should the distinction between 
 poetry and prose, and the possibility of imaginations allying 
 itself with affection be overlooked." Then there follow these 
 which I call admonitory words, "We cannot encourage a 
 remorseless criticism of Gentile histories and escape its con- 
 tagion when we approach Hebrew annals ; nor acknowledge a 
 Providence in Jewry without owning that it may have 
 comprehended sanctities elsewhere." Afterv/ards he goes on 
 and says, " Conscience would not lose by exchanging that 
 repressive idea of revelation which is put over against it as an 
 adversary, for one to which the echo of its best instincts 
 should be the witness,""' and something about a miracle, which 
 I need not trouble you with at present. There is another 
 passage which I would read, and perhaps it would be in 
 support of that passage at the end which I read about " the 
 hirelings." He says at page 52, (and this will do quite as 
 well for my purpose as the passage which was abandoned from 
 the other Essay), " If we are to retain the old Anglican
 
 — 57 — 
 
 foundations of research and fair statement, we must revise 
 some of the decisions provisionally given upon imperfect 
 evidence, or if we shrink from doing so, we must abdicate or 
 ancient claim to build upon the truth ; and our retreat will 
 1)0 either to Rome, as some of our lost ones have consistently 
 seen, or to some form, equally evil, of darkness voluntary. 
 The attitude of too many English scholars before the last 
 monster out of the deep is that of the degenerate senators 
 before Tiberius. They stand balancing terror against mutual 
 shame. Even with those in our universities who no longer 
 repeat fully the required shiboleths, the explicitness of truth 
 is rare. He who assents most, committing himself least 
 to baseness, is reckoned wisest." I pass by entirely the good 
 taste of this passage, comparing all the greater part of the 
 educated clergy of England to the corrupt and degenerate 
 senators, whom Juvenal has condemned to everlasting infamy 
 in this passage, that he refers to when the great fish was 
 brought before Tiberius. I pass by the good taste of that 
 critisism, but what is the meaning of this? What are the 
 " required shiboleths ?" Who " stand balancing terror against 
 mutual shame V And who are those " who no longer repeat 
 fully the required shiboleths V Who could doubt what this 
 language points at ? It points at those who have not been so 
 ingenious at present as to find how they can reconcile the 
 theories of certain German metaphysicians who have discarded 
 all the facts in Revelation, and put their own speculations in 
 their places, how they can reconcile that with the required 
 shiboleths, he means to say, I suppose, with the Creeds, the 
 Articles, the Formularies of the Church. They are the 
 " required shiboleths," and we who still hold to them are 
 those "who stand balancing terror against mutual shame," 
 and looking at the body of Bunsen who is the " last monster 
 out of the deep." The whole of this Essay points to a determi- 
 nation throughout to escape from the restraint Avhich the law 
 has placed upon the clergy. 
 
 Now I come to my passage. I do not know that 1 need 
 read it all, as it has been read very often ; but I will point 
 out the passage which we have afterwards designated as con- 
 veying to us an expression inconsistent with that which a 
 clergyman ought to use. He says, " As in his Egypt " our 
 author sifts the historical date of the Bible, so in his Gott in 
 der Geschlchte he expounds its directly religious element." 
 Then he goes on and says, " Unlike the despairing school, 
 who forbid us trust in God or in conscience, unless we kill our
 
 — 58 — 
 
 souls with literalism ; ho finds salvation for men and states 
 only in bccomino; acquainted with the Author of our life, by 
 whose reason the world stands fast, whose stamp we bear in 
 our forethought, and whose voice our conscience echoes. In 
 the ]hble, as an expression of devout reason, and, therefore, to 
 bo road with reason in freedem, he finds record of the Spiritual 
 grants whose experience generated the religious atmosphere we 
 breathe." We say this, that the eftcct of this passage is to assert 
 that the Bible, or Holy Scripture, is an expression of devout 
 reason ; and then we couple afterwards with the third passage, 
 which contains these words, " Jf such a spirit did not dwell in 
 the Church, the Bible would not be inspired — for the Bible is, 
 before all things, the written voice of the congregation." And 
 we say that those two, together, amount to a declaration that 
 the Bible is not, as wo have been accustomed to think it, " the 
 Word of God, nor containing any special revelation of His 
 truth, or of His dealings with mankind ; nor the rule of our 
 faith, or that you did therein, advisedly, maintain and affirm 
 doctrines, positions, or opinions to that or the like eflect." 
 And wo say that that is contrary to the 6'th, 7th, and 20th 
 Articles of Religion. 
 
 Then there is an intermediate passage put in, which charges 
 ao-ainst Dr. Williams that he has said, " We find the evidences 
 of our canonical books, and of the patistric authors nearest to 
 them, are sufficient to prove illustration in outward act of 
 principles perpetually true, but not adequate to guarantee 
 narratives inherently incredible or precepts evidently wrong. 
 Hence we are obliged to assume in ourselves a verifying 
 faculty, not unlike the discretion which a mathematician would 
 use in weighing a treatise on geometry, or the liberty which a 
 musician would reserve in reporting a law of harmony." We 
 put all this together, and we say tiiat it amounts in substance 
 to denying the Bible to be the Word of God, in the sense in 
 which our Church uses it. 
 
 My lord, the defence first of all was, that this is not the 
 reviewer's opinion, but that it is the author's opinion. I am 
 not quite certain whether that defence is to be taken or not 
 now, because my learned friend who spoke first says it is a 
 passage entirely taken from Bunsen, and that Dr. Williams 
 has nothing at all to do with it. My learned friend who spoke 
 second revealed to us that they had thought, under the parti- 
 cular circumstances of the case, that they had better take 
 independent lines ; and as I understood him — I may be doing 
 him an injustice — but as I understood him, he was of
 
 — 59 — 
 
 opinion that it would be ignoble in Dr. Williams to take 
 shelter under anything of this kind, and that he would admit 
 that the passage must be taken as an expression of his opinion, 
 as well as of the author's. But Dr. Williams cannot be 
 deprived of the defence which is set up for him ; and if, on a 
 comparison of the whole essay, the Court is of opinion that 
 Dr. Williams is entirely severed from Baron Bunsen in this 
 opinion, it would then remain as an act of very gross indis- 
 cretion on the part of Dr. Williams, and perhaps not much 
 beyond that ; but I wish to know whether the first passage, 
 that is taken altogether from the 60th page, and which ends 
 "we breathe," is certainly stated by Baron Bunsen, as it is 
 said to be. I have not got the original here, but it is supposed 
 to be a mere criticism upon what Baron Bunsen has said. 
 But there is no denial whatever of the fact that this theory as 
 to Scripture is laid down. At the bottom of page 61, it is in- 
 deed said " It may be thought that Baron Bunsen ignores 
 too peremptorily the sacerdotal element in the Bible, forget- 
 ting how it moulded the form of the history." But I 
 find nowhere, myself, anything to qualify this theory of 
 the Baron. I do not think my learned friend who spoke 
 first pointed out anything qualifying it. I think he con- 
 tented himself with saying the first passage was Baron 
 Bunsen's, and that there was no word of approbation or 
 assent. I must argue it as if the Court would be bound to 
 find that there was sufficient approbation, or a suflicient want 
 of disapprobation, to make Dr. Williams liable ; it being 
 always remembered that Dr. Williams has said himself, in the 
 first page, " that where he has been best able to follow him, he 
 has generally found most reason to agree with him." What is 
 the meaning of saying the Bible is " an expression of devout 
 reason, and, therefore, to be read with reason in freedom ? " 
 What is the meaning of saying " that the Bible is before all 
 things, the written voice of the congreo-ation ?" I do not care 
 which I take of the two. Is either consistent with the Article 
 which has been so often referred to, and must be referred to again? 
 I come now to the consideration of the meaning of the words 
 in the 6th Article, " In the name of the Holy Scripture, we 
 do understand those canonical books of the Old and New 
 Testament, of whose authority was never any doubt in the 
 Church." And in the 7th Article, "The Old Testament is 
 not contrary to the New, for both in the Old and New 
 Testament everlasting life is offered to mankind." The 
 statement that the Bible is an expression of devout reason,
 
 — co- 
 if it stood alono, miglit simply be rather an unintelligible 
 expression ; but when we find also " the Bible is tlic written 
 voice of the congregation," such a theory of Inspiration 
 appears to me to be utterly inconsistent with the doctrine of 
 any In.sj)iration at all, in the right sense of the word, in the 
 Old Testament. My learned friend who spoke Hrst dealt 
 with the passage about the voice of the congregation in a very 
 remarkable manner. He said on the day of Pentecost there 
 was a Divine effusion of the Holy Spirit upon the Apostles : 
 the Apostles preached the Gospel, and they were some of the 
 congregation, and in that sense the Bible might be the written 
 voice of the congregation. I venture almost to leave that 
 explanation without any comment, because it is so manifestly 
 a distortion of the words of the writer, and so totally unsup- 
 ported by anything the writer has said that I think it may 
 stand almost by itself. My learned friend who followed, 
 adopted a different theory, but both the theories may be said 
 to raise the question of the meaning of these Articles of 
 Religion ; and, perhaps, this will not be an inconvenient time 
 to take the question of what is the meaning of " In the name 
 of the Holy Scripture, we do understand those canonical 
 books of the Old and New Testament, of whose authority was 
 never any doubt in the Church." 
 
 A great deal of argument has been addressed to the 
 Court upon these two points — upon the meaning of the 
 word " Canonical," and then upon the meaning of the word 
 " Inspired." It is contended, as far as Inspiration is con- 
 cerned, that it is an entirely open question — that it was the 
 design and wise intention of those who framed our Liturgy 
 and Articles that it should remain a question upon which each 
 person should be at liberty to exercise his own judgment. It 
 is difficult, in discussing the meaning of the two words, to 
 separate the arguments applicable to each. It is rather 
 difficult, I may observe, to touch upon the question of Avhat is 
 canonical without at the same time trenching upon the subse- 
 quent argument of what is inspired. The sixth Article estab- 
 lishes the ditference to begin with — not looking dehors (as we 
 are in the habit of saying legally) the Article, the Article 
 establishes a negative definition of Canonical books, because 
 " Canonical " is applied to those books of the Old Testament 
 which are recited, and to the books of the New Testament 
 which are not recited, but which were afterwards given at 
 length in the authorized version, and therefore they must be 
 considered as if they were inserted here, and the uncanonical
 
 — 61 — 
 
 books, or the other books (the word " uncanonical '"" is not 
 used), are those which are read " for example of hfe and 
 instruction of manners, but yet the Church doth not apply 
 them to establish any doctrine." Then we get a definition 
 from the terms of the Article itself that what is Canonical, at 
 all events is used for the establishment of doctrine. But it is 
 said, yes, that may be, but nevertiieless that does not mean 
 inspired. Now we must look a little to the meaning of the 
 word " Canon."" First of all, Canon^ as we all know in its 
 literal acceptation, is a rule. It has been variously applied, 
 but it is a rule, and I will read Calmet''s definition in his 
 Dictionary of the Bible. I cannot lay ray hand upon the 
 book now, but I will give your Lordship the reference pre- 
 sently. I am now going to cite from the authority of Bishop 
 Cosin ; he is a great authority upon this point, because he 
 wrote upon the Canon, and here is his work — it is called, A 
 Scholastical History/ of the Canon of the Holy Scripture ; or, 
 the Certain and Induhitctble Books thereof, as they are received 
 in the Church of England. I have already stated to the 
 Court the claims of Dr. Cosin to be considered as an au- 
 thority, he having been one of the compilers of the Prayer 
 Book. He gives a clear account of what he considers to be 
 the meaning of " Canonical " and " Canon :" in the first chap- 
 ter he sets out the Article as it is here, and then in chapter 
 1, in the preface, he says, " The Books of Scripture are there- 
 fore called Canonical, because as they had their prime and 
 sovereign authority from God himself, by whose Divine Will 
 and inspiration they were first written and by whose blessed 
 providence they have been ever since preserved and delivered 
 over to posterity, so they have been likewise received and in 
 all times acknowledged by his Church to be the infallible rule 
 of our faith, and the perfect square of our actions in all things 
 that are any way needful for our eternal salvation." He cites 
 as marginal notes the passage from Timothy, " All Scripture 
 is given by inspiration of God " — the passage from St. Peter, 
 " Holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy 
 Ghost "" — and the passage from Luke, " As he spake by the 
 mouth of His Holy prophets." He then says, " other books 
 what honour soever they have heretofore had in the Church, or 
 what is thei'e still continued to them, yet if they cannot show 
 all these marks and characters upon them : 1 . That they are of 
 supreme and Divine authority. 2. That they were written 
 by men specially acted and inspired for that purpose by the 
 Spirit of God. 3. That they were by the same men and the
 
 — 62 — 
 
 same men and the same authority delivered over for such to 
 all posterity. 4. That they have been received for such by 
 the Church of God in all ages ; and, 5. That all men are 
 both to re<Tulate their faith and to measure their actions by them 
 as the undoubted witness of God's infallible truth, and ordi- 
 nances declared in them, "If," says this learned writer, "they 
 want any of those peculiar and proper notes of difference 
 whereby the books of God are distinguished from the writings 
 of men, pious and useful books they may be in their kind, but 
 they shall want that honour wdiich is specially reserved to the 
 dignity of Sovereign and Divine Scripture whereunto this 
 honour is due (saith St. Augustine), and to no other writing 
 besides. That whatsoever is there said is undoubtedly true 
 and ought most firmly to be believed without any further 
 question or disceptation about it, which cannot be said of any 
 other writing that was ever yet composed and sent abroad 
 into the world." He then goes on to give a list of the Canon- 
 ical Scriptures, and the volume is occupied by a discussion 
 which is terminated page 222, chaper 19, in which he gives 
 the conclusion and summary of all the former chapters. 
 " The conclusion, therefore, of all this discourse will be. That 
 the religion of the Church of England in her Article concern- 
 ing the Holy Scriptures (whereunto the public confession of 
 the Reformed and Protestant Churches abroad, besides the 
 Christians of the East and South parts of the world, would be 
 agreeable) is truly Catholic ; that the ancient Church of the Old 
 Testament acknowled no other books to be Canonical than we 
 do. That our blessed Saviour and his Apostles after him 
 received no other. That the several ajjes following; adhered 
 to the same Canon. That the authors of the books of Tobit 
 and Judith, and the rest of that order, were no prophets 
 inspired of God, to write his authentical Scriptures. That 
 they who first put these Dentero Canonical or Ecclesiatical 
 books into the volume of the Bible, did not thereby intend to 
 make them equal to the books of Moses and the Prophets, 
 but only to recommend them unto the private and public 
 reading of the Church, both for the many excellent precepts 
 and examples of life that be in them, and for the better know- 
 ledge of the history and estate of God's people, from the time 
 of the Prophets to the coming of Christ. That it is not in 
 the power of the Roman Church, nor any other, either to 
 make new articles of faith, or to make any books Sacred and 
 Canonical Scriptures (so as to be binding rules of our faith 
 and religion) which were not such in their own nature before,
 
 — 63 — 
 
 that is, inspired by God, and by his authority only ordained 
 to be such from the time when they were first written." 
 Therefore as far as this learned writer is concerned, "inspired 
 by God," and "Canonical," are identical in their meaning in 
 the Thirty-nine Articles. 
 
 I may, indeed, at once tell the Court that I shall contend in 
 the language of the Article which I have read, the sixth Article, 
 that there is no doubt that "canonical"" does mean "inspired," 
 and that the force of the expresssion would not be in the least 
 increased if the word " inspired " were added to it, and that 
 looking to contemporaneous authorities, there is no question 
 that they used the word " canonical "" as they would the word 
 "inspired." The authority I have cited is one instance. 
 
 Now let us look at another authority. Barrow, in volume 
 6, Oxford edition, page 32, sermon 34, which is a sermon on 
 the Divinity of the Holy Ghost, says, First, it is His especial 
 work (speaking of the Holy Ghost) "to declare God's mind to 
 us, whence he is styled the Spirit of truth, the Spirit of pro- 
 phecy, the Spirit of revelation ; for that all supernatural light 
 and wisdom have ever proceeded from Him. He instructed 
 all the prophets that have been since the world began, to know. 
 He enabled him to speak the mind of God concerning things 
 present and future. Holy men (that have taught men their 
 duty and led them in the way to bliss) were but His instru- 
 ments, speaking as they were moved by the Holy Ghost." 
 Then follow the words, " By His inspiration the Holy Scrip- 
 tures (the most full and certain witness of God's mind, the 
 law and testimony by which our life is to be directed and 
 regulated) were conceived. He guides the Apostles into all 
 truth, and by them instructed the world in the knowledge of 
 God's gracious intentions towards mankind, and in all the 
 Holy mysteries of the Gospel.'"' Then he proceeds to make 
 these citations from the New Testament. " That which in 
 these ages was not made known to the sons of men, as it is 
 now revealed unto his holy Apostles and Prophets by the 
 Spirit,*" and so on, and then he says, " All the knowledge we 
 can pretend to in these things doth proceed merely from his 
 revelation, dolh wholly rely upon his authority."" That is an 
 authority which would rather be for inspiration, but it is diffi- 
 cult, as I have said, to separate the authorities for "canonical," 
 from those for " inpiration."" 
 
 The next authority is from Archbishop Tillotson''s Sermons, 
 it is either volume xii., or volume xix., according to the edi- 
 tion, it is page 100 in the one I have. In the third paragraph 
 of the third sermon on the text, " \yithout faith it is impos-
 
 — Gi — 
 
 siblo to pleaso God." The question is, what assurance 
 miracles u;ive, that those persons who are said to be the penmen 
 of the Books of Scripture were divinely inspired? The 
 minicles (under which I comprehend the prediction of future 
 events), whicli Moses, and the prophets, and the apostles 
 wrought, were testimonies from heaven, that they were Divine 
 persons, and that what they said was to credited, and conse- 
 quently, if they gave out themselves for such, that they were 
 such. That the penmen of the New Testament were persons 
 endued with a miraculous power, is plain, because they were 
 most of them apostles ; and for the rest, we have no reason to 
 doubt it, those extraordinary gifts being so common in the 
 primitive times. However, so long as there is nothing in the 
 rest, that is dissonant from or conti-ary to, what those wrote, 
 of whose inspirations we are assured, and these their writings 
 (this is an important passage upon the point), " Having always 
 been received in the Church as of Divine inspiration, which 
 we may well presume was not rashly done, and without 
 grounds we have no reason to doubt, as to them, or if there 
 were, so long as they contain nothing that is contrary to those 
 who were unquestionably inspired, the matter is of no danger- 
 ous consequence ; and as for the penmen of the Old Testament, 
 we are assured that they were all inspired, by one in the New 
 Testament, that was unquestionably so, viz., St. Paul." The 
 authority upon the point of law is not weak, because it is that 
 of Archbishop Tillotson. He had been very much mixed up 
 with the resettlement of ecclesiastical affairs in the time of 
 William and Mary, and was inclined, as is well known, to the 
 most liberal view that could be taken. 
 
 T will next refer to Tomline's Theology^ volume i., page 19, 
 This authority is taken from a chapter which has this heading, 
 " Chapter the first, of the authenticity and inspiration of the 
 Books of the Old Testament."" The whole of the chapter is 
 upon that ; and at page 18, he says, " It is great argument for 
 the truth of the Scriptures, that they have stood the test and 
 received the approbation of so many ages, and still retain their 
 authority, though so many ill men in all ages have made it 
 their endeavour to disprove them, but it is a still further 
 evidence in belief of them, that God has been pleased to show 
 so remarkable a providence in their preservation ;" and then 
 follow these words, "but the most decisive proof of the authen- 
 ticity and inspiration of the ancient Scriptures is derived from 
 the New Testament. The Saviour of the world himself, even 
 he who came expressly from the Father of Truth to bear wit- 
 ness to the truth in the last instructions which He gave to
 
 — 65 — 
 
 his apostles before his ascension, said, " These are the 
 words I spake unto you while I was yet with you, that all 
 things must be ftilfilled which were written in the Law of 
 Moses, and in the prophets, and in the Psalms concerning 
 Me. Our Lord, by thus adopting the common division of the 
 law, the prophets and the Psalms which comprehended all the 
 Hebrew Scriptures testified the canon of the Old Testament, 
 as it was received by the Jews, and by declaring that those 
 books contained prophesies which must be fulfilled, he esta- 
 blished their Divine inspiration, since God alone can enable 
 man to foretell future events." 
 
 I now go to the second volume of the same work, page 190, 
 where he is giving an exposition of this very article ; he says, 
 " The Divine inspiration of the Holy Scriptures, and conse- 
 quently their truth and obligation, is allowed both by Papists, 
 and by members of our Church, but the Papists assert that 
 the books of the New Testament do not contain the whole 
 rule of a Christian''s faith and practice. They believe that the 
 apostles orally delivered many doctrines and precepts of the 
 highest importance to our external happiness, which are not 
 contained in the New Testament." And then he goes on : 
 " On the contrary, we of the Church of England affirm, that 
 the Scriptures contain a complete rule of faith and practice, 
 and we reject every doctrine and precept as essential to salva- 
 tion, or to be obeyed as Divine, which is not supported by 
 their authority.''' Now, my lord, I come to an authority which, 
 if it has not the advantage of years, as a contemporary autho- 
 rity has every advantage, if I may take the liberty of saying 
 so, which a book can derive from the learning, and wisdom, 
 and genius of its author. It is called, The Insj^iration of Hohj 
 Scripture^ written by William Lee, D.D., Fellow and Tutor 
 of Trinity College, and Professor of Ecclesiastical History in 
 the University of Dublin, and perhaps it will be found to 
 contain upon this great subject, the most complete exposition 
 that the Church has yet furnished. At all events, it is one by 
 which I am very willing to be bound. He states the question, 
 and T shall be under the necessity of recurring to it by and 
 by, but 1 wish more especially to confine my attention 
 now to identifying " canon" with " inspiration," and in his 
 appendix, at page 497, of the second edition, note 7, he says 
 this : " The title canonical requires also to be noticed, and 
 first of all the lanouao'e of councils demands attention." And 
 then he cites the Council of Carthage, nomine vi., ordine 
 temper v. (A.D., 419)' — " Et ut prseter Scripturas canouicas 
 nihil iu Ecclesia legatur sub nomine Divinarum Scripturarum. 
 
 F
 
 Sunt autem ct CanonicsD Scripturce," not an unimportant cita- 
 tion — tliat is at p. 41 9 ; and then, at p. 4.98, in his notes, he goes 
 on to state what they arc. Then he quotes what is called the 
 (^uinisest Council, and he quotes the Council of Laodicea. 
 
 " on 8eT 8fxf(T6ai koi nvayivaxrKfiv nda-as ras SeBeyfjLfvas Oflns ypa(j)as, 
 T^i Tt iroKaia^ koX Kaiv7j<; 8tadr]Krjs." Then ho showS ' the USG 
 
 of the title " Canonical, ""' as used hy individual Fathers, 
 and he quotes Ignatius and Augustine, Upon Augustine, I may, 
 witiiout an Imputation of pedantry, say a word to the Court. 
 It is notorious that our Ileformers relied mainly upon 
 Augustine in tlie composition of our articles, and he is referred 
 to over and over again, in the articles and in the Homilies ; 
 and the Court may remember a great discussion upon liis au- 
 thority in the Denison case. It will not, however, be gainsaid 
 by the other sid, that of all the Fathers he was the one to 
 whom all the Reformers looked with the greatest affection, and 
 whose footsteps they intended to follow, as appears upon 
 the face of the articles. This learned writer says, " From 
 the numerous passages in which this title is employed 
 by St. Augustine (a.d. 396), I select the following," and then 
 he quotes from De Civilitate Dei, book xviii., chapter 38, 
 title 7, page .521, and I have verified that (I have the book 
 beside me), and I find it to be a perfectly accurate quotation. 
 He says, " Augustin suggests that the books referred to by the 
 sacred writers, and not received into the canon, were excluded, 
 because those persons to whom the Holy Ghost at times 
 revealed what should have authority in religion ;" and this is 
 is the quotation, " Alia sicut homines historica diligentia alia 
 sicut Prophetas Inspiratione Divina scribere potuisse ; atque 
 hsec ita fuisse distincta, ut ilia tanquam Deo per ipsos loquenti, 
 judicarentur esse tribuenda ; ac sic ilia pertinerent ad uber- 
 tatem cognitionis, hsec ad religionis auctoritatem ; in qua 
 auctoritate custodltur canon,'''' in whose authority the canon 
 is kept. The Court will remember the exact expression in 
 our article of the Church of England, the Church which is the 
 Jceeper of Holy Writ. Then there is another quotation which 
 is taken from his sermon, " Contra Cresconium Donatistam," 
 which 1 have not verified myself, but I can have it verified if 
 there should be any dispute as to the authenticity of it. He 
 says, " Nos eum nullam Cypriano facimus injuriam cum ejus 
 quaslibet literas a Canonica Divinavum Scripturarum auctoritate 
 distinguimus." There the words 'are put together, the only 
 distinction between that and our article being, that the word 
 '■'■ Divinarum'''' is put in. And then at page 499, he gives a 
 'gloss which is not necessary to read, and then he gives a pas-
 
 — 67 — 
 
 sage from Erasmus, which I may as well cite. Erasmus, in 
 speaking of the Canonical Scriptures, says — " Nomen Scrip- 
 turfB Oanonicae quot volumina complectitur ? Istud expedite 
 docuit Oyprianus Hebrsei trifariam distinguunt omnem Scriptu- 
 ram, canonicam appellant citra controversiam afRatu Sancti 
 Spiritus proditam."" I will now ask your lordship's attention to 
 the note which follows, which is note 2. At note 2, are these 
 words : " I have dwelt on the force of the word ' Canonical,' 
 and its invariable use in the sense of ' Scripture given by 
 inspiration of Grod,"* because this fact affords a complete answer 
 to an assertion sometimes made, that the Church of England 
 leaves the doctrine of inspiration an open question." The 
 framers of the sixth Article knew but one sense of the word, 
 a sense consecrated by the usage of centuries. When they 
 argued with their opponents on the subject of Scripture, their 
 constant appeal was to tlie meaning which the Fathers assigned 
 to the word " Canonical" (see the publications of the Parker 
 Society, passim). St. Augustine, of course, being tlie leading 
 authority with men who held his opinions so strongly, and 
 who have twice quoted his words in the short space of the 
 " Articles of Religion" (Article 10, and expressly Article 29). 
 I may also refer to the " Wurtemburg Confession," a docu- 
 ment notoriously made use of by the English Reformers, when 
 the Thirty-nine Articles were finally settled, and the words of 
 which are used in Article six, " Sacram Scripturam vocamus 
 eos Canonicos Libros Veteris et Novi Testamenti de quorum 
 auctoritate in Ecclesi4 nunquam dubitatum est, hanc Scripturam 
 credimus, et confitemur esse oraculum Spiritus Sancti." 
 
 There is a passage in aid of this, which I cite from Butler s 
 Analogy, vol. i., part 2, cap. 7, sec. 8, p. 254, of the common 
 Oxford edition. " To say, then, that the Scriptures, and the 
 things contained in them, can have no other or further 
 meaning than those persons thought or had who first recited 
 or wrote them, is evidently saying that those persons were the 
 original, proper, and sole authors of those books, that is, that 
 they are not inspired, which is absurd, whilst the authority of 
 those books is under examination, that is till you have deter- 
 mined they are of no Divine authority at all. Till this 
 be determined, it must in all reason be supposed, not indeed 
 that they have, for that is taking for granted that they are 
 inspired, but that they may have some further meaning than 
 what the compilers saw or understood." The inference from 
 that is (he is arguing with the Atheist) that the Church of 
 England held them to be inspired. 
 
 There is a little book that I think my learned friend iutro- 
 
 F 2
 
 — C8 — 
 
 (lucod mo to, by Wcstcott, published at Cambridi^e, in 1855, 
 called, " A General Surve?/ of the History/ of the Canon of the 
 New Testaincnt during the Four Centuries.'''' At page -i?!, be 
 puts the motto to tiie chapter from Athaua.sius, in these words, 
 
 " f7r\Tjpu)dr) t6' TTvp TjKQov jBoKflu eVt rfju yi]v ' ovk a(\iavL(TTiKov ak\a 
 
 Kad<ti)TiK6u" and then he says, at page 527, " The testimony of 
 Jerome may be considered as the testimony of the IJoman 
 Church, for not only was he educated at Rome, but his labours 
 on the text of Scripture M'cro undertaken at the request of 
 Damasus, Bishop of Home, and later Popes republished the 
 canon which he recognized. Innocent and Gallacius both 
 pronounced all the books of the New Testament which we now 
 receive, and these only, to be canonical, and the judgment 
 which was accepted at Rome was current throughout Italy." 
 And then, he says, " Augustine has given a list of the books 
 of the New Testament exactly agreeing with our pi'esent 
 canon." At page 536, he refers to an authority that I think 
 my learned friend, Mr. Fitzjames Steven, referred to — Fulke. 
 "■ Fulke, again, in his answer to Martin, states, that the Holy 
 Scriptures, according to the acknowledgement of the English 
 Church, arc all and every one of equal credit and authority, as 
 being all inspired of God." But it is useless to multiply quota- 
 tions, for I am not aware that the judgement of the English 
 Church, as expressed by her theologians, has ever varied as to 
 the canonical authority of any of the books of the New Testa- 
 ment, and he refers to Fulke's defence of the translation of the 
 Bible, paoe S, edition of the Parker Society. There is one 
 observation wliich occurs upon the very reading of the Arti- 
 cles themselves, and one which appears too difficult to an- 
 swer. The Old and the New Testament are both put under the 
 same category of canonical. Now those who contend that 
 " canonical " is not equivalent in its use in this particular 
 Article to inspired, must contend that the New, as well as the 
 Old, Testament is not described by the Article as inspired. 
 
 Now, my lord, I am brought to an argument upon the 
 general question of Inspiration, which I can most unfeignedly 
 say I approach with nothing but awe, but which it would be a 
 mere shrinking from my duty not to deal with, and though 
 these sacred matters are discussed in a court of justice, yet I 
 hope, from the manner in which this cause has been con- 
 ducted, no irreverence will ensue therefrom, but that we may 
 continue, as we have begun, so to make those necessary cita- 
 tions so as not in any way to shock those who regard with the 
 greatest reverence everj-^thing relating to Holy Writ. I make 
 this preface because I am about to put a dilemma which I
 
 — 69 — 
 
 confess appeai's to me to be perfectly unavoidable, with regard 
 to a matter, wliicli has not yet been attempted to be met by 
 the argument on the other side, and concerning which there is 
 the most remarkable silence in the whole of Dr. WilHains's 
 Essay. You who contend, as my learned friend behind me 
 does, boldly, that the inspiration of the Old Testament, and the 
 prophecies, is an open question ; you who contend that it is 
 perffK^tly within the competence of every clergyman of the 
 Oliurch of England to say that the Prophets were hoi}'- and 
 moral men, inspired in the same sense as all other holy and 
 moral men are, but who did not in their prophecies give any 
 specific prediction of future events, and, above all, of those 
 events of the New Testament with which all our hopes as 
 Christians are bound up ; jou, who hold that opinion, how do 
 you extricate yourselves from this dilemma! If I show you 
 that, I will not say innumerable passages, because they are 
 numerable, but in about an hundred passages, our Blessed 
 Lord himself and the Holy Apostles have distinctly stated 
 that the prophet was inspired who foretold certain events, how 
 do you escape from this dilennna — that the person so speaking 
 was either himself ignorant, or deceived, or a deceiver ? My 
 lord, it is a dilemma which I can claim no merit for putting — 
 it is a dilemma which was admirably put in a work which is 
 referred to, as it appears to me, in tlie most ignorant and 
 superficial manner in this Essay, in the great work of Bishop 
 Chandler, in answer to the Deists of his time — either, he said, 
 you deny the authority of those who applied those Scriptures 
 to themselves on the ground that they were predicted of tlum, 
 or you must admit the theory of inspiration. 
 
 Bishop Chandler wrote a book, called " A Defence of Chris- 
 tianity, from the Prophecies of the Old Testament, wherein 
 are considered all the Objections against this kind of proof 
 advanced in a late discourse of the Grounds and Reasons of 
 the Christian Religion." Grounds and Reasons was an Infidel 
 publication, I think by Chubb, I am not quite sure whether it 
 was by Chubb or Collins, but it was an Infidel publication 
 under^that name. It would be really most amusing (if such 
 an epithet could be applied) to see the way in which this very 
 learned person. Dr. Williams, whose censure by the Ecclesi- 
 astical Court is to operate, according to my learned friend, as 
 the destruction of all the learning of the Church, lias dealt 
 with this particular question about Bishop Chandler. He 
 says, at page 65 of Essaj/s and Revieics — " In our country 
 each successive defence of the prophecies in proportion as its 
 author w^as able, detracted something from the extent of literal
 
 — 70 — 
 
 prognostication, and either laid stress on the moral element, or 
 urged a second as the spiritual sense. Even Butler foresaw 
 the possibility that every prophecy in the Old Testament 
 might have its elucidation in contemporaneous history; but 
 literature was not his strong point, and he turned aside, 
 endeavouring to limit it, from an unwelcome idea. ]iishop 
 Chandler is said to have thought twelve passages in the Old 
 Testament directly Messianic ; others restricted this character 
 to live. Paley ventures to quote only one." (Now, I say, 
 apart from the censure which this book justly deserves on 
 other grounds, a more disingenuous statement I never met 
 with.) " Bishop Chandler is said to have thought twelve 
 passages in the Old Testament directly Messianic ; others 
 restricted this charhcter to five." What is the inference from 
 that? Why,. that Bishop Chandler thought that there were 
 only twelve passages in the Old Testament which were pro- 
 phetic of Our Saviour, and that Bishop Chandler said so. 
 Chandler is not a very easy book to get, and it is clear that 
 Dr. Williams had never looked at it when he published this 
 statement. Bishop Chandler says no such thing. What 
 Bishop Chandler does say is, that out of a great number of 
 prophecies he has selected twelve, which is a very different 
 story. At page 62 of his Defence of Christianity, he says, 
 " But not to rest in generals, let the disquisition of particular 
 texts determine the truth of this author's assertion. To name 
 them all would carry me into too great a length. I shall 
 therefore select some of the principal prophecies which, being 
 proved to regard the Messias immediately and solely in the 
 obvious and literal sense accordino: to scholastic rules, may 
 serve as a specimen of what the Scriptures have predicted " of 
 a. Messias that was to come ; so that instead of his being said 
 to have found only twelve, he selected twelve of the principal 
 out of others which would carry him to too great a length. 
 Now, he deals with this question throughout the whole of his 
 book. I cannot read the whole work — the whole work is upon 
 the subject — but, at page 413, chapter vi., section 3, he says, 
 " The second proposition, which 1 here advance, is this, that the 
 miracles of Christ were such as demanded credit, of his inter- 
 pretations, for His works' sake. If it were questioned whether 
 a prophecy belongs to the Messias by reason of the general 
 terms it is delivered in, or of some expressions in the context 
 that seem to restrain the event of persons or facts nearer to 
 the prophet's days, the ambiguity ought to cease after it hath 
 been determined, to one sense, by the authority of a person that 
 maketli miracles. Thus Christ's disciples, who at first believed
 
 — Ti- 
 the Messias should be a temporal deliverer, aud consequently' 
 should understand the prophecies which spoke of his sutferings 
 and death, were at last convinced of the truth of Christ's sense 
 of those prophecies from His resurrection." Aud then he 
 says, at page 416, in the same chapter, after dwelling upon 
 that subject — " What should well-meaning impartial people 
 eay to these things ? If they were deceived, God did 
 (pardon that expression) deceive them. Either he that spoke 
 in his name, and acted by his power, did truly explain the 
 prophecies to them, or the gracious God equally a lover of 
 truth, and of his creatures, lent his power to an impostor, to 
 lay honest people under an invincible necessity to believe his 
 imposture. They had a good evidence of the hand of God in 
 those works of wonder that he had wrought, as they had for 
 his eternal power aud Godhead in the visible works of the 
 creation." That is the way in which Bishop Chandler puts 
 the dilemma. He then refers to the difterent prophecies of 
 our Saviour, which our Saviour himself recognised as such. 
 Now, of course, to go through the whole of these prophecies 
 would be a task which I am not called upon to perform. This 
 argument is sufficient for me, but I will refer the Court to a 
 summary which is given in many books, and admirably by 
 Barrow in his famous 76th Sermon upon the sufterings of 
 Christ, foretold in the Old Testament. He begins his sermon 
 in this way : " Many good arguments there are, different in 
 kind, which conspire to persuade the truth of our religion ; 
 such as are the intrinsic reasonableness, excellency, and per- 
 fection of its doctrine ; the miraculous works performed in 
 attestation thereto ; the special favour of Providence declared 
 in the support and propagation thereof; but upon no other 
 ground do the Scriptures so much build its truth, and our 
 obligation to embrace it, as upon the exact correspondence and 
 conformity thereof to all the ancient Scriptures, which did 
 foreshow or foretell its revelation and introduction into the 
 world — to those especially which described the personal cha- 
 racters, circumstances, and performances of our Lord. To 
 this our Lord, in his discourses and disputes with incredulous 
 people, referred them — ' Search the Scriptures,' said he, 
 ' because in them ye expect to have eternal life ' — that is, to 
 find tlie true way of saving truth leading thereto — 'and 
 those are they which testify of me.' By this he instructed 
 and convinced his disciples ; beginning from Moses and from 
 all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the Scriptures 
 the things concerning himself; and these (said he to them 
 presently before his departure) are the words which I spakQ
 
 — 72 — 
 
 " unto you while I was with you, that all things must be 
 fulfilled which are written in the law of Moses, and in the 
 Propliots, and in the Psalms, concerning me. This the 
 Apostles, in all their preaching (whcrehy they taught, proved, 
 and persuaded the Cliristian doctrine) did chiciily insist upon. 
 ' Moses,'' saith St. Peter, ' truly said unto the fathers, yea, 
 and all the prophets from Samuel, and tiiose that follow after, 
 as many as have spoken have likewise foretold of these days.' 
 ' And to him,' ,saitli he again, ' give all the prophets witness 
 tliat threugh his name, whosoever believeth in him, shall 
 receive remission of sins.' And of St. Paul, it is said, that 
 he mightily convinced the Jews — showing, by the Scriptures, 
 that Jesus was the Christ ; and he expounded and testified the 
 Kingdom of God, persuading them concerning Jesus, both out 
 of the law of Moses and out of the Prophets. Thus the chief 
 Apostles and founders of our religion ; in their public dis- 
 courses and in their Epistles, they observed the same method, 
 as particularly asserting Christian docrines and duties by the 
 testimonies of prophetical Scriptures ; so generally alfirming 
 our religion to be chiefly grounded on them, of whicli salvation 
 (saith St. Peter, concerning the salvation exhibited by the 
 Cospel) the Prophets did inquire and search diligently, who 
 prophesied of the grace to come unto you. And, in regard to 
 the conviction of others, he seems to prefer the attestation of 
 this kind before the special revelation immediately made to the 
 Apostles : for, having spoken of it, he subjoins Ka\ e'xofieu jSe- 
 ^aiortpov Tov TrpocfyrjTiKov \6yov. We have also a more sure word 
 of prophecy, whereunto ye do well" that ye do take heed, as 
 unto a light that sliiueth in a dark place, until the day dawn 
 and the day-star arise in your hearts. And St. Paul saith 
 that the mystery which was kept secret, since the world began, 
 was then made manifest ; and by the prophetical Scriptures, 
 according to the commandment of the everlasting God, made 
 known to all nations to the obedience of faith. And the Holy 
 writings, he telleth Timothy, were able to make him wise to 
 the salvation which is by the faith of Jesus Christ. That is, 
 they were able to show and persuade to him the truth of 
 Christianity, which promiseth salvation to all that heartily 
 embrace it and observe its laws. Such a stress was laid upon 
 this probation by the founders of our religion ; and no wonder, 
 for that is not extremely forcible in itself, but hath some 
 particular uses and some peculiar advantages beyond others — 
 the foreknowledge of future contingent events, such as were 
 many of those concerning our Saviour, depending upon the 
 freest acts of human will. As it is for the manner of attaining
 
 — 73 - 
 
 " it most incomprelionsible to us, so it is most proper to God, 
 and by all men so acknowledged — future contingencies being- 
 secrets with no man ; no angel, no creature, can dive into, 
 they being not discernible in their causes, which are indeter- 
 minate ; nor in themselves, who are finite. The prediction, 
 therefore, of such events, could not otherwise than proceed 
 from his pleasure ; neither could he yield it in way of favour 
 and approbation to that which was not perfectly ti-ue and good : 
 tliis way, therefore, doth absolutely confirm the truth and 
 goodness of Christian doctrine. It, withal, manifests the 
 great worth and weight thereof, as implying the particular 
 regard and care God had of it, designing it so anciently, layino- 
 trains of Providence toward it, and preparing such evidences 
 for the confirmation thereof. It, together, into the bargain, 
 maintaineth the truth of the Jewish dispensation, the sincerity 
 of the ancient patriarchs and prophets, and the vigilant care 
 the Divine goodness hath always had over the state of religion, 
 and toward the w^elfare of mankind, never leaving it destitute 
 of some immediate revelations from himself. It had a peculiar 
 aptitude to convert the Jews, who were possessed with a full 
 persuasion concerning the veracity and sanctity of their ancient 
 prophets ; and could not, therefore, doubt concerning the 
 truth of tbat wliich appeared conformable to that which they 
 had foretold should be declared and dispensed for their benefit. 
 This probation also hath this advantage that it, singly taken, 
 doth convince ; whereas, others can hardly do it otherwise 
 than in conjunction with one another, and especially with its 
 aid, for the goodness of the doctrine may be contested in some 
 points ; and, however good it seem, it may be imputed to 
 human invention. Strange effects may be deemed deducible 
 by other causes besides Divine power, and they may be suffered 
 to be done for other ends than for confirmation of truth : 
 they are also commonly transient, and thence most liable to 
 doubt. Providence also is, in many cases, so mysterious and 
 unsearchable, that the incredulous will never allow any 
 inferences to be drawn from it ; but the plain correspondence 
 of events to the standing records of ancient prophecies — 
 obvious and conspicuous to every one that will consult and 
 compare them — concerning a person to be sent by God, who 
 should have such circumstances and be so qualified, who 
 should, in God's name, preach such doctrines and perform 
 such works, is a proof which alone may assure any man that 
 such a person doth come from God, and in what he declaretli 
 or doeth approved by him ; no counterfeiting can here take 
 place, no evasion can be devised from the force of this proof.
 
 — 74 — 
 
 " Tliis way, therefore, of discourse our Lord and his Apostles 
 — whose business it was, by the most proper and effectual 
 nu'thods, to snbihio the reasons of men to the obedience of 
 faith and entertainment of Christian truth — did especially use 
 as generally in respect to all things concerning our Lord, so 
 particularly in regard to liis Passion, declaring it to happen 
 j)unctually according to what had been foreseen by Ood, and 
 thence foreshowed by his Prophets rightly understood." He 
 then goes on to dwell at great length upon all the texts in the 
 prophecies and the Psalms, which our Lord himself and his 
 Apostles applied to themselves. The whole sermon is full of 
 them ; it is a collection of all the passages, in the Prophets 
 and the Psalms, which our Lord and his Apostles applied to 
 themselves as Divine predictions. It is not necessary, 1 think, 
 to read any more ; yet there is one passage which, perhaps, I 
 might read from his thirtieth sermon, on the text, " On the 
 third day He rose again." And he says, at page 463, " It 
 was needful to illustrate the veracity, wisdom, and providence 
 of God, by making good what he had signified in the ancient 
 Scriptures concerning it — either in mystical adumbrations or 
 by express predictions — understood according to those infallible 
 expositions which the Apostles did receive from the instruction 
 of our Lord or from illumination of that Spirit which dictated 
 the Scriptures ; the particular instances, as being obvious and 
 requiring large discourse, I forbear to mention." 
 
 The position therefore is of the greatest importance, because 
 if you deny (as it is claimed by my learned friend on behalf of 
 his client) that the prophecies contain predictions of our Lord, 
 you place yourself in opposition to all that He has said upon 
 the subject, and all that His apostles have said. Now, is 
 not it a remarkable thing that there is no reference to that 
 difficulty in the whole of this Essay ? I have no doubt, I will 
 not say how Baron Bunsen particularly, but how the school 
 which Dr. Williams followed, and which has been exploded, 
 though he does not seem to be aware of it, would have 
 answered the difficulty. They would have said. All these texts 
 may or may not be corrupt, we have not seen the original, 
 we do not know where it is, and as we build from top to bottom, 
 instead of from bottom to top, as we have got a speculation 
 of what religion ought to be, if it is not as we say, as the 
 Frenchman said, taut pis pour les fails, we cannot help 
 ourselves, we are quite certain of our theory, and if you 
 produce those texts there are some means of getting rid of 
 tliera (we cannot exactly say what they are), either by a 
 " verifying faculty," or by a " remorseless criticism ;" by the
 
 — 75 — 
 
 "verifying faculty," we say they could not have said anything 
 of the kind, and " a remorseless criticism " has got rid of the 
 texts in which they did say so. That is not a comfortable 
 doctrine for the parishioners of Broad Chalk. The bare 
 statement goes a very long way to dispose altogether of the pos- 
 sibility of the inspiration of the Holy Scriptures having ever 
 been left an open question in the Church of England. 
 " Inspiration " no doubt has various meanings, but it is a 
 mere logomachy, it is a mere fighting with words. You 
 might as well say that the word " Scriptures," has various 
 meanings, and that because Imogen says, " the scriptures of 
 the loyal Leonatus all turned to heresy," meaning private 
 letters, Shakespeare was alluding to the Holy Scriptures. 
 Who doubts that the " inspiration," in a particular pas- 
 sage in the Prayer Book applies to that inspiration which 
 the Holy Ghost gives to those who duly ask for it ; but it 
 surely is the idlest of all arguments to cite the use of " inspi- 
 ration " in the Prayer Book, used in the common sense of the 
 word "inspiration," namely, "breathing in," for that sense 
 of inspiration which is canonical, and by common consent 
 applied only to one subject. When you speak of Scripture, 
 what do you mean ? You mean the Holy Scriptures. When 
 you speak of inspiration what do you mean! You do not 
 mean Crod's ordinary agency on the mind of a good man. 
 When you say a prophet was inspired, you mean of course 
 that he had the power of foretelling future events. 
 
 A good deal has been said upon a subject which must be 
 dealt with. A good deal has been said about literal inspiration, 
 and it is said, that j'ou are driven to this absurdity. You 
 must say that every punctuation, and every letter, and every 
 expression is inspired by the Holy Ghost. Why, my lord, 
 that is to assume an amount of ignorance of all the great 
 writers of the English Church, which nothing but the necessity 
 could have driven my learned friend to. There is the famous 
 sermon of Bishop Bull on the very question on the text, " The 
 cloak and parchments which I left at Troas,'' and so forth. 
 But the question has been discussed over and over again, and 
 the Church of England has never holden that doctrine of literal 
 inspiration, which is a pious opinion, to be binding upon the 
 Church. I have nothing to do with that excellent man. Dr. 
 Chalmers' opinion about inspiration, nor with what the West- 
 minster Catechism may have said, nor with any other docu- 
 ment which is not the foundation of the doctrines of the 
 Church of England, I have to do with the explanation given
 
 ^^ N/> 
 
 by tho Clmrcli of England herself, and I defy my learned 
 friends to find any such statement. 
 
 I will come presently to the proof, not in my own languaij^e, 
 but in the language of great divines, that the Church of 
 ]M)gland lias held the doctrine of ;;/<?/?rtn/ impiration always, 
 and that the distinction wliich he has drawn between plenary 
 iiispinitioa and literal inspiration is perfectly intelligible. 
 It would be no argument if the Church of England had held 
 that pious oj)inion of literal inspiration ( for it is a pious 
 opinion, though in my opinion a nnstaken one), that because 
 cei'tain absurd consequences would follow from it, therefore 
 you could set aside the plain meaning of the articles and the 
 canons. 
 
 Now there is a point which I must not pass by. In these ar- 
 ticles, the "Word of God" is used in the 17th, in the 21st, in 
 the 22nd, and, I think, in the 24th. The last words of the 1 7th 
 are, " In our doings that the Will of God is to be followed which 
 we have expressly declared unto us in the Word of God." The 
 21stsa3^s '-General Councils niaynot be gathered together with- 
 out the conuiiaudment and will of princes. And w^hen they bo 
 gathered together (forasmuch as they be an assembly of men, 
 whereof all be not governed with the " Spirit and Word of God)." 
 In the 22nd we find, " The Ilomish doctrine concerning pur- 
 gatory, pardons, worshipping, and adoration, as well of images, 
 as of reliques, and also invocation of saints, is a fond thing 
 vainly invented, and grounded upon no warrantry of Scrip- 
 ture, but rather repugnant to the Word of God." And in the 
 2ith, we find, " It is a thing plainly repugnant to the Word 
 of God, and the custom of the Primitive Church, to have 
 public prayer in the Church, or to minister the Sacraments in 
 a tongue not understanded of the people." Now in the 
 twentieth Article there is this remarkable addition, " The 
 Church hath power to decree rites or ceremonies, and autho- 
 rity in controversies of faith. And yet it is not lawful in 
 the Church to ordain anything that is contrary to^ God's 
 AVord written, neither may it so expound one place of Scrip- 
 ture that it be repugnant to another. Wherefore, although 
 the Church be a witness and a keeper of Holy Writ, yet 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." Now, my lord, can it be conceived for a moment 
 that the addition of that word, " written," adds the slightest 
 force to " God's Word." " God's Word written," it happens 
 to say in that article ; in the other articles, the expression that
 
 — 77 — 
 
 is used is "• Grod's Word." Now, in tlie name of common 
 sense, what is God's Word in the Jjihle, if tliat be not in- 
 spired? What is God's Word as distinuuished from the word 
 of Shakespeare, and Luther, and Alilton, in their works? 
 Tlie more it is examined, the more it will be seen, that a more 
 baseless delusion, if these persons have been building upon it, 
 that they could deny the inspiration of the Bible, because the 
 word, " inspiration " in so many letters did not occur in the 
 articles, was never built upon. If the word "inspiration" 
 had been added to " God's Word written," would it have added 
 a single tittle offeree or strength to " God's Word" ? 
 
 My lord, in resuming my argument to-day, I wish to state 
 that yesterday I left off with the subject of the Homilies, and 
 I was about to cite some passages from those works upon the 
 doctrine of inspiration. Before I do so, I desire to add one 
 or two to the catalogue of authorities referred to in my 
 argument of yesterday, as to what is a faithful subscription to 
 the Articles. I wish to add the authority of Burnet on the 
 tbirty-nine Articles, pp. 9 and 10. "But T come," this 
 author says, " in the next place to consider what the clergy is 
 bound to by their subscriptions. The meaning of every sub- 
 scription is to be taken from the design of the imposer, and 
 from the words of the subscription itself. The title of the 
 Articles bears, that they were agreed upon in Convocation for 
 tlie avoiding of diversities of opinions, and for the stablishint>- 
 consent touching true religion where it is evident that a 
 consent in opinion is designed. If we, in the next place, con- 
 sider the declaration that the Church has made in the canons, 
 we shall find, that though by the fifth canon, which relates to 
 the whole body of the people, such are only declared to be 
 excommunicated ipso facto who shall affirm any of the Articles 
 to be erroneous, or such as he may not with a good conscience 
 subscribe to ; yet the thirty-sixth canon is express for the 
 Clergy, requiring them to subscribe willingly, and ea: amino, 
 and acknowledge all and every article to be agreeable to the 
 word of God, upon which canon it is that the form of the 
 subscription runs in these words, which seem expressly to 
 declare a man's own opinion, and not a bare consent to an 
 article of peace, or an engagement to silence and submission." 
 On the point of Dr. Clarke's suspension, I mentioned 
 yesterday the authority without giving the volume or the 
 page. I wish to supply that omission. The history of Dr. 
 Clarke's recantation of his Arianism is to be found in Card- 
 well's St/nodalia, page 785.
 
 — 78 — 
 
 There were also some passages in Caliiict on the question of 
 tlic Canon, which I couhl not lay my hand upon yesterday. 
 I liavc them now. Cahnet, as your lordship recollects, was 
 born in JG92, and died in 1757 — I quote from Taylor\s edition 
 of him in 1829. He is an authority very much relied upon 
 by English commentators on the JJiblo, especially by Dr. 
 Mant. He says upon the word canon, " it is a rule — also to 
 distinguish those books of Scripture which are received as 
 inspired, and indisputable from profane, apochryphal, or dis- 
 puted books." And on the word " prophet," in the fourth 
 paragraph, he says " the usual way by which God communi- 
 cated his will to the prophets was by inspiration, which con- 
 sisted in illuminating the mind of the prophet, and inciting 
 him to proclaim what the Lord had dictated. In this sense 
 we acknowledge as prophets all the authors of all the canon- 
 ical books of the Old and New Testament." Bingham, in his 
 Chri&tian Antiquities (Book x., ch. 8, sect. 2), on the question 
 " why a creed is called a canon and recfula jidei^'' says, 
 " Kai/wi/ the rule so called because it was the known standard 
 or rule of faith by which orthodoxy and heresy were examined 
 and judged answers to the Latin term regulafidei, &c." 
 
 Waterland has a passage on the same subject (vol. iv., page 
 449, edition 1843, Oxford), Regeneration Stated and Ex- 
 plained. " From Regeneration by the Spirit it appears but a 
 small and slight transition to go on to inspiration, for that is 
 a good word when used in a just and sober sense, and it is 
 frequently so used in our Church Liturgy. But the word 
 will also bear a nmch higher sense as when ascribed to the 
 Apostles or sacred penmen." 
 
 Then, my lord, upon the term Canon., I wish also to cite 
 from a very famous work, Jones's Canon of the Neio Testament. 
 I believe it is the work on the subject. I had the good for- 
 tune to buy this copy at the sale of Bishop Coplestone's 
 library, and I see by his marks in the margin that he had 
 studied it. In p. 19 he says, " The infinitely good God 
 having favoured mankind with a revelation of his will, has 
 thereby obliged all those, who are blessed with the knowledge 
 thereof, to regard it as the unerring rule of their faith and 
 practice. Under this character, the Prophets, Apostles 
 and other writers of the sacred books, published and delivered 
 them to the world, and on this account they were dignified 
 above all others with the titles of the canon and canonical. 
 The word canon is originally Greek, and did in that language 
 (as well as in the Latin afterwards) commonly denote that 
 which was a rule or standard by which other things were to
 
 — ro- 
 be examined and judged. And inasmuch as the books of 
 divine inspiration contained the most remarkable rules and 
 the most important directions of all others, the collection of 
 them, in time, obtained the name of the Canon, and each 
 book was called " Canonical."" 
 
 So that at all events I have the authority of this distin- 
 guished author for saying that in his opinion the word 
 "canonical"''' in the Articles, and the word "inspired"'"' are 
 identical. 
 
 Dean of the Arches. — What is the title of the book? 
 
 Dr. Ph'dlimore. — " A new and full method of settling the 
 Canonical authority of the New Testament, to which is sub- 
 joined a vindication of the former part of St. Matthew's Gos- 
 pel, from Mr. Whiston's Charge of Dislocations ; in three 
 volumes ; by the Reverend Jeremiah Jones." This edition 
 was published at the Oxford Clarendon Press, in 17.98. No 
 one will dispute that it is the book on the canon which is 
 is always referred to- It is distinct altogether from Jones of 
 Nayland's book. To continue my citation from this author. 
 " At what time they were first thus called is not very easy to 
 determine. Some imao;ine St. Paul himself to have "iven 
 this title to the sacred books extant in his time, (Gal., vi., 16, 
 and Phil., iii., 16). But the Apostle seems in those places 
 rather to speak of the doctrine of the Gospel, than any books 
 which contained it, although it is very probable that St. 
 Paul's using the word canon in these places, was the occasion 
 of its afterwards being affixed to the books themselves. This 
 seems the most genuine account of the original of this appel- 
 lation ; nor do I know of any other that has been, or can be 
 assigned, besides that of Mr. Du Pin and Mr. Whiston."" 
 
 I wish also to add an authoiity upon another point which I 
 dealt with yesterday. Upon that very important question, 
 whether the selections of Scripture in the Liturgy ought to be 
 taken literally, as containing the doctrine of the Church, I 
 wish to refer to two passages in Hooker s Ecclesiastical Polity; 
 one in book v., paragraph 19, just towards the end ; it is in 
 these words (he was answering the objection that too much 
 Scripture is read in our churches mixed up with the prayers): 
 " For with us the reading of Scripture in the church is a part 
 of our Church Liturgy, a special portion of the service which 
 we do to God, and not an exercise to spend the time when 
 one doth wait for another's coming, till the assembly of them 
 that shall afterwards worship him be complete." 
 
 And then he says, in another passage (book v., sect. 22), 
 " In our speech of most holy things, our most frail affections
 
 — 80 — 
 
 many titnos are bewrayed. Wherefore when we read or recite 
 the Seripturo, we then deliver to the people properly tlie word 
 of (fod. As for our sermons, be they never so sound and 
 perfect, his word they are not, as the sermons of the ])ropliets 
 were ; no, they are but ambiguously termed his word, because 
 his word is commonly the subject whereof they treat, and 
 must be the rule whereby they are framed." 
 
 I should wish that authority to be classed with those I 
 have already produced on the subject of the selection of the 
 Scriptures in the Liturgy. 
 
 Now, my lord, going on from the point at which I left off 
 yesterday, I desire to draw your Lordship's attention to cer- 
 tain passages in the Homilies upon the true meaning attached 
 by the Church of England to the word inspiration. Before I 
 do so, let mo again, in order to prevent all possibility of mis- 
 take, say that I understand the argument upon the other side 
 to be this : they say in order to convict Dr. Rowland Willams 
 of teaching a doctrine contrary to the Church of England upon 
 the subject of inspiration, you must contend for literal inspi- 
 ration. That, I believe, is the argument on the other side, to 
 which we replj/, we do not contend that literal inspiration 
 is the doctrine of the Church of England ; we say it is a pious 
 opinion which English Churchmen are at liberty to hold ; but 
 it is not a necessary doctrine of the Church of England. 
 What we do contend for is, what is called plenary inspiration, 
 which I will presently explain in other language than my 
 own. What we do contend for is, that the doctrine of inspi- 
 ration in the Church of England, is one which excludes 
 altogether the vieAv of it which places it on the level of human 
 reason, or on the level of that ordinary inspiration of the Holy 
 Ghost to good men who pray for it, according to the statement 
 of our Liturgy. We say both those meanings are clearly 
 excluded by the use of " inspiration," according to the forms 
 and declarations of the Church of England when speaking of 
 the prophets. Therefore, in these citations I am about to 
 produce, I am supporting the argument that " inspiration," 
 when applied to the Holy Scriptures or the prophets, means 
 an action of the Holy Ghost upon the mind different and 
 distinct — not only different in degree^ as my friend who spoke 
 last contended, but different in kind from that of the ordinary 
 use of the word " inspiration." 
 
 Mr. Fitzjames Stephen. — I said different not merely in 
 degree^ but in object as well as in degree. 
 
 Dr. Phillimore. — I think you said different in degree but 
 not in kind.
 
 — 81 — 
 
 Mr. Fitzjamcs Stephen. — The same process used for a 
 difterent purpose, and differing in degree, I did not say 
 different in kind ; I said the same kind, but for a different 
 object and in a different degree. 
 
 Dr. PkilUmore. — If you say so, I am sure I am the last 
 person who would wish to pin you down to any statement you 
 might wish to correct. Substantially I think it comes to the 
 same thing. Mr. Stephen says it is a different kind of inspira- 
 tion. Perhaps I may have to say a word again upon the 
 general argument by and by. I shall contend that though, 
 most wisely, the Church has never given any precise defini- 
 tion of what is " inspiration,'" it has nevertheless by necessary 
 consequence excluded such views of inspiration as my learned 
 friends contend for, which would bring it down, when all is 
 explained, to the level of human reason. 
 
 In the preface to the Homilies (this preface was published 
 in 1562) it is stated, "considering how necessary it is that 
 the Word of God, which is the only food of the soul, and that 
 most excellent light that we must walk by in this our most 
 dangerous pilgrimage, should at all convenient times be 
 preached unto the people, that thereby they may both learn 
 their duty towards God, their prince, and their neighbours, 
 according to the mind of the Holy Ghost expressed in the 
 Scriptures." Now the argument on the other side must con- 
 tend that those words, " according to the mind of the Holy 
 Ghost expressed in the Scriptures," are identical with "accord- 
 ing to the mind of the Holy Ghost as expressed in Luther, or 
 Milton, or Shakspere."'"' 
 
 At page 390 (the Homily is the' first part of the informa- 
 tion of certain places of the Scripture) there is this passage : — ■ 
 " the ordinary way to attain this knowledge is with diligence 
 to hear and read the Holy Scriptures. For the whole Scrip- 
 tures, saith St. Paul, were given by the inspiration of God, 
 and shall we Christian men think to learn the knowledge of 
 God and of ourselves in any earthly man's work or writing 
 sooner or better than in the Holy Scriptures, written by tlie 
 inspiration of the Holy Ghost ? The Scriptures were not 
 brought unto us by the will of man, but holy men of God, as 
 witnesseth St. Peter, spake as they were moved by the Holy 
 Spirit of God." At page S95, of the same edition, there is a 
 further passage in the same Homily, and in it there is a 
 very remarkable expression. The writer of this Homily speaks 
 with just indignation of the attempt to cast ridicule on Holy 
 Scripture by taking isolated passages from the Scriptures, 
 especially from the Psalms. He takes Psalm Ix. — " Moab is 
 
 G
 
 my washpot, and over Edom will I cast out my shoe," and ho 
 says, " Now, I pray you, what uncomely manner of speech is 
 this so used in common phrase among the Hebrews? It is a 
 shame that Christian men should bo so lightheaded, to toy as 
 ruffians do uith such manner of speeches uttered in good, 
 grave signification by the Holy Ghost." Now I may be very 
 incompetent to understand the value and force of words, but I 
 can only say this, that if, for the purpose of my argument, I 
 had been obliged to put down words which would express what 
 I consider the doctrine of the Church, I should have used 
 these expressive terms, viz., " uttered in good, grave significa- 
 tion by the Holy Ghost." At p. 399, in " the second part of 
 information for them which take oft'ence at certain places of 
 the Holj'- Scripture,"" he says, " Thus if ye will be profitable 
 hearers and readers of the Holy Scriptures, ye must first deny 
 yourselves, and keep under your carnal senses, taken by the 
 outward words, and search the inward meaning ; reason must 
 give place to God's Holy Spirit ; you must submit your 
 wordly wisdom and judgment unto his divine wisdom and 
 judgment. Consider that the Scripture, in what strange form 
 soever it be pronounced, is the Word of the living God." At 
 page 403, in the same Homily, and the same part of it, 
 " Christ Jesus, the Prophets, the Apostles, and all the true 
 Ministers of his Word, yea, every jot and tittle in the Holy 
 Scripture have been, is, and shall be for evermore the savour 
 of life unto eternal life, unto all those whose hearts God hath 
 purified by true faith. Let us earnestly take heed that we 
 make no jesting stock of the books of Holy Scriptures, 
 The more obscure and dark the sayings be to our under- 
 standing, the further let us think ourselves to be from God and 
 His Holy Spirit, who was the author of them. Let us with 
 more reverence endeavour ourselves to search out the wisdom 
 hidden in the outward bark of the Scripture. If we cannot 
 understand the sense and the reason of the saying yea, let us not 
 be scorners, jesters, and deriders, for that is the uttermost 
 token and show of a reprobate, of a plain enemy to God and 
 his wisdom. They be not idle fables to jest at, which God 
 doth seriously pronounce ; and for serious matters let us 
 esteem them." 
 
 These, my lord, are the passages on the word ' inspiration,' 
 and on the word identical with it in the Homilies, upon which 
 I would chiefly rely. Theae are other words, to which I will 
 presently direct your lordship's attention, in the same book, 
 on the subject of prophecy. Now, looking at the authority of 
 these citations in a purely legal light, I ara sure they will
 
 — 83 — 
 
 strike the mind of the Court as being of considerable import- 
 ance. Not only does the Church especially refer in the Arti- 
 cles to the Homilies, as containing expositions of the Word of 
 God upon which the Church relies, but the Court will bear in 
 mind" that by the canons of 1603, when there was great doubt 
 what doctrines would be preached in the pulpit, and whelher 
 or no the doctrine which is taught by the Liturgy might not 
 be contradicted by preaching, those canons gave the Ordinary 
 the power of prohibiting even a beneficed clergyman from 
 preaching anything but the Homilies. Therefore, the Homi- 
 lies must be considered, in any way they are looked at upon 
 questions of doctrine — not speaking of questions of ritual, or 
 of the ornaments or decoralions of the Church — upon ques- 
 tions of doctrine, they must certainly be considered as con- 
 taining a very striking exposition, and (which is of greater 
 importance to my argument) a legal exposition of the mind of 
 the Church. 
 
 Upon the question of prophecy, I may as well refer the 
 Court to the authorities in this book upon that point. In 
 page 428 of the same edition, in the sermon on the Nativity, 
 " Afterwards, the selfsame covenant was also more amply and 
 plainly renewed unto Abraham where God promised him, that 
 in his seed all nations and families of the earth should be 
 blessed. Again, it was continued and confirmed unto Isaac in 
 the same form of words as it was before unto his father. And 
 to the intent that mankind might not despair, but always live 
 in hope. Almighty God never ceased to publish, repeat, con- 
 firm, and continue the same, by divers and sundry testimonies 
 of his prophets, who, for the better persuasion of the thing," 
 (these are very remarkable words) " prophesied the time, the 
 place, the manner, and circumstance of his birlh, the afiliction 
 of his Hfe, (he kind of his death, the glory of his resurrection, 
 the receiving of his kingdom, the deliverance of his people, 
 with all other circumstances belonging thereunto." 
 
 Then the writer sets out what they are. I find it very 
 difficult to sever in my address the argument as to inspiration, 
 and the argument as to the predictive element in prophecy ; 
 they naturally run one into the other, and I must be pardoned 
 if Icannot always keep them distinct. That passage gives us 
 the mind of the Church. It cannot be denied (and I have too 
 much respect for the honesty and understanding of my learned 
 friends to suppose that they will attempt to deny it) that this 
 passage, whatever its value may be, does contain a distinct 
 declaration that the prophecies do contain a predictive element 
 
 G 2
 
 • —84 — 
 
 and historical facts that at least cannot bo got rid of by any 
 process of reason or interpretation. 
 
 Tlie next passage is in page 441, in the sermon of the 
 Passion for Good Friday : " Then if he be our father indeed, 
 let us give him his due honour. If we be his children, let us 
 show him our obedience, like as Christ openly declared his 
 obedience to his father, which, as St. Paul writeth, was 
 obedient even to the very death — the death of the cross. 
 And this he did for us all that believe in him. For himself 
 he was not punished for he was pure and undefiled of all 
 manner of sin. He was wounded, saith Esay, for our wicked- 
 ness, and striped for our sins ; he suffered the penalty of them 
 himself, to deliver us from danger. He bare, saith Esay, all 
 our sores and infirmities upon his own back. No pain did he 
 refuse to suffer in his own body, that he might deliver us from 
 pain everlasting." 
 
 The value of this citation is twofold ; upon the general point 
 which pervades the argument, and especially upon the citation 
 from the 53rd chapter of Isaiah, which is distinctly denied in 
 Dr. Williams's Essay to have any historical bearing on our 
 Saviour. 
 
 At page 453, in the second sermon on the Passion, tho 
 same prophecy is again referred to : " He, saith the prophet 
 Esay (meaning Christ), hath borne our infirmities, and hath 
 carried our sorrows ; the chastisement of our peace was upon 
 him, and by his stripes we were made whole." 
 
 At page 461, in the sermon on the Resurrection: "That 
 these links, therefore, of our faith should all hang together in 
 steadfast establishment and confirmation, it pleased our Saviour 
 not straightway to withdraw himself from the bodily presence 
 and sight of his disciples j but he chose out foi*ty days, 
 wherein he would declare unto them, by manifold and most 
 strong arguments and tokens, that he had conquered death, 
 and that he was also truly risen again to life." He began, 
 saith Luke (that is a citation from St. Luke, chap. 24, v. 27), 
 " at Moses and all the prophets, and expounded unto them 
 the prophecies that were written in all the Scriptures of him, 
 to the intent to confirm the truth of his Resurrection long 
 before spoken of, which he verified indeed, as it is declared 
 very apparently and manifestly, by his oft-appearance to 
 sundry persons at sundry times." 
 
 Now I come, I think, to my last citation upon this subject, 
 at p. 448 ; and that is from a homily in which you would 
 expect to find the meaning of the Church upon inspiration 
 laid down more expressly, perhaps, than in any other, because
 
 — 85 — • 
 
 it is the first part of the sermon for Whit Sunday. Perhaps 
 
 I had better read the preceding part as to the day of Pentecost: 
 
 *' And here it is to be noted, that as the law was given to the 
 
 Jews in the Mount Sinai, the fiftieth day after Easter, so was 
 
 the preaching of the Gospel, through the niighty power of the 
 
 Holy Ghost, given to the Apostles in the "Mount Sion, the 
 
 fiftieth day after Easter. And hereof this feast hath his 
 
 name, to be called Pentecost, even of the number of the days. 
 
 For as St. Luke writeth, in the Acts of the Apostles, when 
 
 fifty days were come to an end, the disciples being all together 
 
 with one accord in one place, the Holy Ghost came suddenly 
 
 among them, and sate upon each of them, like as it had been 
 
 cloven tongues of fire. Which thing was undoubtedly done, 
 
 to teach the Apostles, and all other men, that it is he which 
 
 giveth eloquence and utterance in preaching the Gospel, that 
 
 it is he which openeth the mouth to declare the mighty works 
 
 of God, that it is he which engendereth a burning zeal 
 
 towards God's word, and giveth all men a tongue — yea, a 
 
 fiery tongue, so that they may boldly and cheerfully profess 
 
 the truth in the face of the whole world, as Esay was endued 
 
 with this spirit. The Lord, saith Esay, gave me a learned 
 
 and a skilful tongue, so that I might know to raise up them 
 
 that are fallen with the word. The prophet David crieth to 
 
 have this gift, saying ' Open thou my lips, O Lord, and my 
 
 mouth shall show forth thy praise.' For our Saviour Christ, 
 
 also in the Gospel, saith to his disciples, ' It is not you 
 
 that speak, but the spirit of your Father which is within you.' 
 
 All which testimonies of holy Scripture do sufficiently declare 
 
 that the mystery in the tongues betokeneth the preaching of 
 
 the Gospel, and the open confession of the Christian faith in 
 
 all them that are possessed with the Holy Ghost." 
 
 Then the author goes on, and speaks of the attributes of the 
 Holy Spirit. " But that this may appear more sensibly to 
 the eyes of all men, it shall be requisite to come to the other 
 part — namely, to the wonderful and heavenly works of the 
 Holy Ghost, which plainly declare unto the world His mighty 
 and Divine power. First, it is evident that He did wonder- 
 fully govern and direct the hearts of the patriarchs and 
 prophets in old time, illuminating their minds with the know- 
 ledge of the true Messias, and giving them utterance to 
 prophecy of things that should come to pass long time after. 
 For, as St. Peter witnesseth, the prophecy came not in old 
 time by the will of man ; but the holy men of God spake as 
 they were moved inwardly by the Holy Ghost." 
 
 Now I want to know if this be true doctrine, what is to be
 
 — 86 — 
 
 said of a clergyman who expresses himself in this language, 
 wliother as a reviewer or as an author. "When so vast an 
 induction on the destructive side has been gone through, it 
 avails little that some passages maybe doubtful ; one, perhaps, 
 in Zecliariah and one in Isaiah, capable of being made directly 
 Messaianic, and a chapter possibly in Deuteronomy fore- 
 shadowed the final fall of Jerusalem. Even these few cases, 
 the remnant of so nmch confident rhetoric, tend to melt, if 
 they are not already melted, in the crucible of searching 
 inquiry. If our German had ignored all that the masters of 
 pliilology have proved on these subjects, his countrymen would 
 have raised a stoi'ui of ridicule, at which he must have 
 drowned himself in the Neckar." I suppose it will not be 
 contended — indeed I must say it has not been — that the 
 reviewer does not, upon this point, entirely adopt the opinions 
 of his author : and the opinion of his author is that there are 
 no prophecies directly Messianic; and the opinion of his 
 reviewer is, that if he had said so ridiculous a thing, he would 
 have been dealt with so ignominiously by his enlightened 
 countrymen, that he must have drowned himself in the 
 Neckar. 
 
 Well, my lord, those are the passages ; and, for myself, I 
 must confess it seems to me a very hopeless task — if you 
 admit at all that the Homilies are evidence of the legal mind 
 of the Church — to reconcile such passages as these with 
 such teaching as is in this book before me, Essays and 
 Reviews. 
 
 My lord, I have always a great apprehension and great 
 distrust in these cases of a purely etymological argument ; 
 and when I heard my learned friend, Mr. Stephen, in the 
 course of his very able and very eloquent speech, have recourse 
 to such an argument as this — that " prophet " and " pro- 
 phecy " did not originally have any connexion with " pre- 
 dicting " or "prediction," I could not help thinking that he 
 had hardly sufficiently weighed the force of such an argument 
 as that. Almost all words, no doubt, may be used in one or 
 two meanings ; and we all know that, in course of time, 
 words change their meanings very much ; but it would be 
 perfectly ridiculous to press an argument, from mere etymology, 
 against the obvious sense impressed upon a passage from the 
 context. No one would be heard to aro-ue that man might 
 be allowed to call another a "villain," inasmuch as, according 
 to the etymology of the term, he merely meant that he was a 
 " countryman ; " such an argument would be treated with 
 just ridicule.
 
 — 87 — 
 
 My learned friend said he had looked into a very learned 
 work, Liddell and Scott's Lexicon, and he could not find in 
 that book that " prophecy " liad any connexion with " pre- 
 diction." My friend did not look far enough, I think. 1 do 
 not attach any value to the argument ; but if your lordship 
 
 will look at npocjirjreia r\ (rt po(f)r]Teva)), you wiU find it haS the 
 
 meaning of " prediction." 
 
 I. " A foretelling ; the gift of prophecy." (For that a 
 heathen writer is quoted ; also tlie Greek Testament.) 
 
 II. A foretelling ; the gift of expounding of Scripture ; 
 preaching, I. Tim., i., 18-4, 14. npo^rjTevco has, among other 
 meanings, " to prophecy." 
 
 Those are the two meanings, and I need not remind your 
 lordship that Jeremy Taylor's most celebrated work, T/ie 
 Libert ji of Prophecyinr/, written under peculiar circumstances, 
 had uotliing whatever to do with our common meaning of the 
 word "prophecy ;" it meant simply a use of the word which 
 was not then obsolete, i.e., " preaching." It is very often so 
 used in the Liberty of Propkecijing. He thought at one time 
 that the Church of England ought to have, not that she had 
 the liberty of pi-eaching all doctrines which were not expressly 
 forbidden by the three creeds. That book has been cited ; I 
 am not going to refer to it again, but in passing, I make these 
 observations about it. It was written by Jeremy Taylor during 
 the great Eebellion, at a time when his mind (it is well known, 
 and is stated in his life) was greatly influenced by the recent 
 state of political excitement and by the lamentable condition 
 of the Church of England. 
 
 Jeremy Taylor argues, that it would have been desirable 
 to have had no subscription Articles of Faith beyond the three 
 creeds. Now, of course no argument can be drawn from that 
 book in favour of that liberty, on behalf of a clergyman who has 
 subscribed the Thirty-nine Articles. The whole scope of the book 
 is directed against any subscription to the Thirty-nine Articles, 
 and in favour of a plain subscription to the three Creeds. I 
 do not enter into the question, whether he was right or 
 wrong. 
 
 My lord, the meaning of " inspiration" also illustrates the 
 position I have just laid down about etymology. Inspiration, 
 no doubt, in its sti'ict sense, only means a " breathing into ;" 
 but when anybody speaks of the inspirtaion of Scripture, 
 we all know' that he means more tlian that — every one 
 knows what is meant by it — i.e., tliat it has come to be syno- 
 nymous with a gift of prophetic power. Now., the Greek word 
 in the New Testament which we have translated " inspiration,"
 
 — 88 — 
 
 if it had been moro literally given, would have prevented that 
 mistake arisins;, for the word in the Greek Testament is 
 6(07rvfoarToi;,* which mcaiis, "breathed by God." 
 
 My lord, I said I would give you what I conceive to be 
 the doctrine of the Church of England in other language than 
 my own, and I prefer doing so in the language of Bishop Van 
 Mildert, because in his Sermons on the Boyle Lecture, an insti- 
 tution to which this country is much indebted, he dealt with 
 this subject. Among the sermons which compose those lec- 
 tures he preached, called the 2yrd sermon, in which he took 
 for his text, All Scripture is given by inspiration of God. 
 He begins his sermon by saying, " Every argument brought 
 to prove the truth of revealed religion, may be considered as 
 intended ultimately to establish the Divine inspiration of the 
 Scriptures." That is the first position which he starts with. 
 Then in a passage at page 8.92, to which I wish especially to 
 refer, he says, " But before we enter upon the proof of this 
 fact, something is to be premised respecting the extent and 
 degree of inspiration, which we believe to have been bestowed 
 ,upon the sacred writers." He says, a little further down, 
 page 393, " In questions which do not admit of reference to 
 our own personal observation and experience, care should bo 
 taken to avoid superfluous niceties of discussion. In the pre- 
 sent instance, therefore, we need only contend for that kind or 
 degree of inspiration, which may give to the authors of the 
 Bible the proper character of sacred writers, and to their 
 books the general stamp of Divine authority. Where strictly 
 verbal inspiration was necessary to that end, we cannot doubt 
 that verbal inspiration was granted. Where inspiration of 
 the substance of the truths without the verbal expression was 
 sufficient, there we may presume that only so much was 
 actually vouchsafed. But of this we can be but very incom- 
 petent judges ; nor is it necessary that we should be able to 
 decide upon this point, provided we can, on good grounds, 
 establish the authority and the sufficiency of the Scriptures, 
 collectively considered ; so that it may justly be said of them, 
 that they are "the oracles of God," and "are able," as the 
 apostle says, " to make us wise unto salvation." Many, it is 
 to be feared, endeavour to detract from this entire inspiration 
 of the Scriptures, that they may reserve to themselves the 
 liberty of admitting or rejecting particular facts and doctrines 
 in accommodation to their own favourite opinions. But it 
 seems impossible that the Scriptures can answer the purpose 
 
 ^ " nao-a ypacfyf) Oionvtvcrroi;" — II. Tim., iii., 16,
 
 — 89 — 
 
 of a complete rule of faith and practice, unless they are 
 acknowledged to be universally binding, and to be generally 
 delivered by one and the same authority. To suppose a 
 partial inspiration only, is in effect destroying the authority of 
 the whole ; because, as no certain criterion can be fixed, by 
 which to judge what is really inspired, and what is not, one 
 man might reject this portion, and another that, till none were 
 left free from cavil and dispute. The kind of inspiration, 
 therefore, which it is here intended to vindicate, is that which 
 may properly be called a plenary inspiration ; denoting by that 
 term that the sacred writers constantly received from the Holy 
 Spirit such a degree of assistance, as might suffice to give to 
 every part of Scripture its sanction and authority as the Word 
 of God. To this end it is not necessary to suppose that the 
 sacred writers were on every occasion favoured with direct 
 communications from above ; but rather, that under a Divine 
 impulse, they at sundry times committed to writing super- 
 natural truths, the knowledge of which, having been pre- 
 viously revealed to them, still remained impressed upon their 
 minds ; and that a further superintendence of the Holy Spirit 
 was vouchsafed for the purpose only of guarding them against 
 any undue mixture of human opinions with those Divine 
 truths. This seems fully sufficient to make the whole Scrip- 
 ture binding upon us, without embarrassing the subject with 
 needless difficulties. For, if this position be established, it 
 will be of little moment whether we can determine in what 
 particular cases (if in any) there was an absolute dictation by 
 the Holy Spirit, or in what the writers were left to express 
 themselves more freely and at will ; since, in either case, the 
 belief of his superintending influence is fiilly sufficient to war- 
 rant us in relying on every part of Scripture, as sanctioned by 
 Divine authority. The probability of such an inspiration 
 cannot be denied. The truth of miracles and prophecies being 
 established, why are we to question the probability of inspira- 
 tion which is only another species of miracle ? Then he says 
 (to select another passage at 418), " The substance then of 
 our argument for the plenary inspiration of the Scripture is 
 this : God having bestowed on the writers such extraordi- 
 nary and supernatural gifts as could only be derived from 
 Him, we cannot but suppose those persons to have been 
 commissioned by Him to declare His will, hence we infer, 
 that in the execution of that purpose, whether by preach- 
 ing or by writing, He would secure them against important 
 error of every kind by such suggestion, superintendency, 
 or control, as should give to what they delivered the
 
 — 90 — 
 
 stamp of Divine authority. And although God might not 
 SCO fit to supersede the use of their natural talents, or their 
 acquired knt)\vledge, or to infuse into them fresh means of 
 information, when those which they already had were sufficient; 
 yet, since they had received especial tokens of his favour and 
 assistance, and since no rule is afforded us to distinguisli 
 between the result of their natural and supernatural powers, 
 we are necessarily led to conclude, that it was the Will of tho 
 Almi"'hty, that all their writings should be received as His 
 word. Wliatever theories, therefore, we may adopt respecting 
 the mode, the kind, or the degree of inspiration with which 
 they were gifted, we cannot question the Divine authority of 
 these writings without virtually questioning those miraculous 
 evidences by which they were attested." At page 420, he says, 
 " If the foregoing remarks on the certainty of Scripture 
 inspiration be well founded, it will not be difficult to establish 
 such a criterion as is here demanded. The evidence of miracles 
 or of prophecy has been stated as indispensably necessary to 
 give validity to any claims of inspiration ; and with evidence 
 of this kind, no writings, but those of the Bible have ever yet 
 been accompanied. Moses gave ample proofs of his pretensions 
 to this gift, by the miracles which he performed. All the 
 sacred writers, from Moses to Malachi, appeared to have been 
 favoured with some external tokens of the Divine assistance, or, 
 at least, to have received the sanction of those who were so. 
 Every book of the Old Testament is also attested as of Divine 
 authority, by the writers of the New, so that if we are 
 convinced of the inspiration of the latter, no doubt can be 
 entertained of that of the former. But the writers of the New 
 Testament abundantly proved their claim to it, by miracles 
 and prophecies." He goes on with the argument which I will 
 not trouble your lordship with now. At page 422, he says, 
 " How then can we doubt either of their inspiration, or of the 
 inspiration of all those books which they regarded as of Divine 
 authority ; especially when we consider, that among the 
 miraculous gifts bestowed on the apostles, was that of ' dis- 
 cerning of spirits,' by which they were enabled to know what 
 teachers or writers made true or false pretensions to this 
 extraordinary illumination ? Thus the Divine authority of the 
 whole canon of Scripture is rendered complete ; and we are 
 secured against delusion in relying upon it as the Word of 
 God." 
 
 I will now refer your lordship to a work I mentioned 
 yesterday, Lee on Inspiration. At page 81, he says, " But 
 whatever may be the result of this distinction, between
 
 — 91 — 
 
 revelation and inspiration as applied to the contents of the 
 Bible, in whatever manner we can satisfy ourselves, that 
 certain portions convey to us a message direct from heaven, 
 or that others simply record historical facts which were 
 naturally known to the writers, it must ever he borne in mind 
 that the true idea of inspiration is altogether objective, 
 extending to every portion of every book ; and that, it stamps 
 the Word of God, as such, in the most profound sense of the 
 term, thereby distinguishing it from everything which is 
 merely human. Inspiration, in short, as the attestation of 
 God's Spirit, in, through^ and for man, belongs essentially to 
 the organism of Scripture as the record of revelation ; and is 
 at length unfolded to us in its full bearings in that depart- 
 ment of it where God reveals himself as the Spirit." At page 
 142, he mentions what has been called the " dynamical theory 
 of inspiration. He says, in note 3, after explaining why he 
 does not entirely agree with that theory. " It must be borne 
 in mind, however, that no more than an analogy exists between 
 this ordinary influence of the Holy Ghost upon Christians in 
 general, and that inspiration which prompted and guided the 
 sacred writers. These two agencies of the same spirit, 
 although analogous are specifically distinct." 
 
 Then he states what subjects he will treat of in his fifth 
 lecture. 
 
 Lefore I put down this book, I will refer to a passage in 
 page 398, which has a bearing upon many of the arguments 
 which have been urged in this cause. " Having thus referred 
 to the arguments against the inspiration of Scripture, founded 
 upon the supposed facts that its authors contradict each 
 other, and that they advance statements at variance with the 
 accounts of profane history, it remains to examine the asser- 
 tion, that the language of the Bible is opposed to many truths 
 which the progress of philosophy has brought to light, unveil- 
 ing the secrets of nature. The I'apid strides with which the 
 material sciences have advanced in our own age, render an 
 examination of this objection more than ever necessary. And 
 I feel particularly called upon to consider what force it may 
 possess, because, as I conceive, the answers usually given to it 
 concede almost everything for which one need care to contend; 
 the objection may be stated as follows : — The language of 
 Scripture, when touching upon topics which involve allusions 
 to the results of science, is expressed so as to betray complete 
 ignorance of those laws of nature which modern researches 
 have brought to light, and consequently (it is argued), the 
 book in which such ignorance is displayed cannot have been
 
 — 92 — 
 
 inspired by the Holy Ghost. The popular form under which 
 the objection is commonly urf^ed will fairly exhibit the force 
 of this ariijument against inspiration. In this form it was, 
 I believe, first suggested by Spinoza, and it is founded on a 
 principle to whicli, somewhat differently applied, Galileo was 
 the victim. We read in the Book of Joshua, ' Then spako 
 
 Joshua to the Lord and he said in the sight of Israel, 
 
 Sun, stand thou still upon Gibeon ; and thou moon in the 
 valley of Ajaton, and the sun stood still, and the moon stayed, 
 until the people had avenged themselves upon their enemies. 
 
 So the sun stood still in the midst of heaven, and 
 
 hasted not to go down, about a whole day f of which passage 
 it is said, that the motion ascribed by its writer to the sun is 
 in manifest contradiction to an established law of nature. 
 The usual reply to this objection is as follows : — ' Your 
 remark is, in point of fact, well founded ; the contradiction 
 which you urge does in reality exist, but Scripture was not 
 intended to teach mankind the conclusions of natural philo- 
 sophy ; and you are not entitled to expect that its statements 
 on such topics shall be found in accordance with the resnlts of 
 scientific discovery.'' To a certain extent, all will admit the 
 force of such an answer, for, as it has been justly said, ' to 
 seek for an exposition of the phenomena of the natural world 
 among the records of the moral destinies of mankind, would 
 be as unwise as to look for rules of moral government in a 
 treatise on chemistry."* But I altogether deny that the con- 
 cession implied, at the same time, in such an answer, namely, 
 that there does exist a real contradiction between this state- 
 ment of the Book of Joshua and the results of science, is 
 justified by anything in the sacred narrative. Let us examine 
 more nearly the bearing of the objection, as well as the cause 
 which has produced in the language of Scripture even a 
 semblance of opposition to physical facts." 
 
 There is an author, who has been very much cited in the 
 course of this argument, for whom I, in common with the rest 
 of my fellow-countrymen, at all events I may say in common 
 with every educated man, entertain the highest respect, and 
 that is the authority of Hooker. I have listened with very 
 great surprise to a statement of the tenets which his work is 
 supposed to support. I have heard him cited as proving that 
 a man's reason is an inspiration in the sense in which that 
 word is applied to the Holy Scriptures, and that you must 
 apply reason to bring inspiration to the test of the truth. 
 Such has been the substance of certain observations made as 
 to Hooker, and said to be gathered from one or two isolated
 
 — 93 — 
 
 passages. I must take the liberty of saying, at the outset, 
 that it would be a contradiction to the whole object and intent 
 of his work if he had ever so expressed himself, and to fully 
 refute such an assertion as that, would require a study of all 
 the books of the Ecclesiastical polity ; but there are one or 
 two passages bearing on this subject generally, and also on the 
 particular point on which I am now addressing you, to which 
 I will refer. I may as well deal with both points together. 
 On this point of reason being sufficient to judge of Revelation, 
 and being a kind of inspiration, he says, in his Second book of 
 Ecclesiastical Polity (section 8, page 264, of the edition I am 
 reading from, that is, the two volume edition published in 
 London in 1825) : — " In actions of this sort the very light of 
 nature alone may discover " (he is speaking of certain texts) 
 " ' no man hateth his own flesh ;' ' If ye do good unto them 
 that do so to you, the very publicans themselves do as much f 
 ' They are worse than infidels that have no care to provide 
 for their own ;*" which is so far forth in the sight of God allow- 
 able. Some things in such sort are allowed, that they be also 
 required as necessary unto salvation, by way of direct, imme- 
 diate, and proper necessity, final ; so that without performance 
 of them we cannot by ordinary course be saved, nor by any 
 means be excluded from life observins: them. In actions of 
 this kind our chiefest direction is from Scripture, for nature is 
 no sufficient teacher what we should do that we may attain 
 unto life everlasting. The insufficiency of the light of nature 
 is by the light of Scripture so fully and so perfectly herein 
 supplied, that further light than this hath added, there doth 
 not need unto that end."" In the third book, and the 3rd 
 section, he begins with a maxim which it would be well for 
 everybody to remember. " The mixture of those things by 
 speech, which by nature are divided, is the mother of all 
 error." And then he goes on to say, " What the Church of 
 God standeth bound to know or do, the same in part nature 
 teacheth. And because nature can teach them but only in 
 part, neither so fully as is requisite for man's salvation, nor so 
 early as to make the way plain, and expedite enough that 
 many may come to the knowledge of it, and so be saved, 
 therefore, in Scripture, hath God both collected the most 
 necessary things that the school of nature teacheth unto that 
 end, and revealeth also whatsoever we neither could with 
 safety be ignorant of, nor at all be instructed in, but by super- 
 natural revelation from him." Then, in section 8 of the same 
 book, he says, " Sixthly, if I believe the Gospel, there needeth 
 no reasoning about it to persuade me ; if I do not believe, it
 
 — 94 — 
 
 must bo the Spirit of God, and not the reason of man, that 
 shall convert my heart unto him." He is taking that objec- 
 tion, that argument. " ]Jy these and the like disputes, an 
 opinion hath spread itself very far in the world, as if the way 
 to be ripe in laitli were to bo raw in wit and judgment, as if 
 reason were an enemy unto religion, childish simplicity the 
 mother of ghostly and divine wisdom. The cause why such 
 declamations prevail so greatly is, for that men suffer them- 
 selves in two respects to be deluded : one is, that the wisdom 
 of man being debased, either in comparison with that of God, 
 or in regard of some special thing exceeding the reach and 
 compass thereof, it seemeth to them (not marking so much) as 
 if simply it were condemned. Another, that learning, know- 
 ledge, or wisdom, falsely so termed, usurping a name whereof 
 they are not worthy, and being under that name controlled, 
 their reproof is by so much the more easily misapplied, and 
 through equivocation wrested against those things whereunto 
 so precious names do properly and of right belong." Then he 
 says, for plainer and fuller explanation, there comes this 
 passage : " First, concerning the inability of reason to search 
 out and to judge of things divine, if they be such as those 
 properties of God, and those duties of men towards him, 
 which may be conceived by attentive consideration of heaven 
 and earth, we know that of mere natural men the Apostle 
 testifieth, how they knew both God and the law of God. 
 Other things of God there be, which are neither so found, nor, 
 though they be showed, can ever be approved without the 
 special operation of God's good Grace and Spirit. Of such 
 things sometime spake the Apostle St. Paul, declaring how 
 Christ had called him to be a witness of his death and resur- 
 rection f]'om the dead, according to that which the prophets 
 and Moses had foreshowed. Festus, a mere natural man, an 
 infidel, a Roman, one whose ears were unacquainted with such 
 matter, heard him, but could not reach unto that whereof he 
 spake ; the suffering and the rising of Christ from the dead, he 
 rejected as idle, superstitious fancies not worth the hearing. 
 The Apostle that knew them by the Spirit, and spake of them 
 with power by the Holy Ghost, seemed in his eyes but learn- 
 edly mad. Which example maketh manifest, what elsewhere 
 the same Apostle teacheth, namely, that nature hath need of 
 grace, whereunto I hope we are not opposite, by holding that 
 grace hath use of nature." Then there is another passage, 
 which I will now refer to, without reading at length under the 
 head of " fourthly," in the same paragraph, to the same effect; 
 and there is one more upon this point which I do not wish to
 
 — 95 — 
 
 pass by ; it is under the " sixthly '^ of the same paragraph. 
 He says, speaking of the address to King Agrippa, " King 
 Agrippa, beheveth thou the prophets? I know thou dost." 
 " The question is, how the books of the prophets came to be 
 credited of King Agrippa, for what with him did authorize the 
 prophets, the hke with us doth cause the rest of the Scripture 
 of God to be of credit, because we maintain that in Scripture 
 we are taught all things necessary unto salvation ; liereupon 
 very childishly it is by some demanded, what Scripture can 
 teach us the sacred authority of the Scripture upon the know- 
 ledge whereof our whole faith and salvation dependeth ? as 
 though there were any kind of science in the world which 
 leadeth men unto knowledge without presupposing a number 
 of things already known. No science doth make known the 
 first principles whereon it buildeth, but they are always either 
 taken as plain and manifest in themselves, or as proved and 
 granted already, some former knowledge having made them 
 evident. Scripture teacheth all supernatural revealed truth, 
 without the knowledge whereof salvation cannot be attained. 
 The main principle whereupon our belief of all things therein 
 contained dependeth, is, that the Scriptures are the oracles of 
 God himself. This in itself we cannot say is evident, for then 
 all men that hear it would acknowledge it in heart as they do 
 when they hear that every whole is moi-e than any part of that 
 whole." Then he goes on to say, " Scripture teacheth us that 
 saving truth which God hath discovered unto the world by 
 Revelation, and it presumeth us taught otherwise that itself is 
 divine and sacred." Then he shows the tradition of the 
 Church. What is that ? " For when we know the whole 
 Church of God hath that opinion of the Scripture, we judge it 
 even at the first an impudent thing for any man bred and 
 brought up in the Church, to be of a contrary mind without 
 cause. Afterwards, the more we bestow our labour in reading, 
 or hearing the mysteries thereof, the more we find that the 
 thing itself doth answer our received opinion concerning it." 
 In the fifth book, section 19, is the passage which I have 
 already read for another purpose, to show with what objects 
 the selection of Scripture were put into the Prayer Book. I 
 refer to it here again, without citing the passage at length. I 
 might draw your lordship's attention to the several passages 
 in this great writer's work from which his own opinion upon 
 inspiration in the great work of the Ecclesiastical Polity may 
 be very safely collected, but I think I have found a compen- 
 dium of that which will save the necessity of reading a great 
 many passages. I am referring to another work of his — two
 
 — 96 — 
 
 Sormong on part of St. Judc's Epistle. These Sermons arc 
 usually printed at the end of the Ecclesiastical Polity. At 
 page 588 (of the second volume of the edition which I have 
 cited), there are these words. It is the first Sermon, and the 
 second paragraj)h. He is speaking of what the Apostle has 
 dcscrihcd in Phillipians, iii., and he says, " These were 
 enemies to the Cross of Christ, enemies whom he saw, and his 
 eyes gushed out with tears to behold them. But we are 
 taught in this place how the Apostle spake also of enemies, 
 whom as yet they had not seen described, a family of men as 
 yet unheard of, a generation reserved for the end of the world, 
 and for the last time thej had not only declared what they 
 heard and saw in the days wherein they lived, but they have 
 prophesied also in time to come, and you do well (saith St. 
 Peter) in that you take heed to prophecy, so that ye first 
 know this, that no prophecy in the Scripture cometh of any 
 man"'s own resolution. No prophecy in Scripture cometh of any 
 man's own resolution, for all prophecy which is in Scripture 
 came by the secret inspiration of God. But there are prophe- 
 cies which are no Scripture, yea, there are prophecies against 
 the Scripture, my brethren — beware of such prophecies, and 
 take heed that you heed them not. Remember the things 
 that were spoken of before, but spoken of before by the Apostles 
 of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. Take heed to prophe- 
 cies, but to prophecies which are in Scripture, for both the 
 manner and matter of those prophecies do show plainly that 
 they are of God.'V' 
 
 Then there follows this passage, " Touching the manner 
 how men by the spirit of prophecy in the Holy Scripture 
 have spoken and written of things to come, we must under- 
 stand, that as the knowledge of that they spake, so likewise 
 the utterance of that they knew, came not by these usual and 
 ordinary means, whereby we are brought to understand the 
 mysteries of our salvation, and are wont to instruct others in 
 the same. For whatsoever we know, we have it by the hands 
 and ministry of men, which lead us along like children from a 
 letter to a syllable, from a syllable to a word, from a word to 
 a line, from a line to a sentence, from a sentence to a side, and 
 so turn over. But God Himself was their instructor ; He 
 Himself taught them, partly by dreams and visions in the 
 night, partly by revelations in the day, taking them aside 
 from amongst their brethren, and talking with them as a man 
 would talk with his neighbour in the way. Thus they became 
 acquainted even with the secret and hidden counsels of God, 
 they saw things which themselves were not able to utter, they 
 beheld that whereat men and angels are astonished, they
 
 — 97 — 
 
 understood in the beginning what should come to pass in the 
 last days." 
 
 My lord, another authority certainly equal — in some men's 
 opinion even superior — to that of Hooker, was the authority 
 of Butler. I must say, I was astonished to see him also 
 pressed into the service. The passage I am about to read, 
 will, I think, dispose altogether of the notion for which he was 
 cited as an authority, viz., that he supports the opinions of 
 Dr. Kowland Williams, on the subject of prophecy. It is in 
 The Credibility of Revelation Liable to Objections, chapter ii., 
 part 3, of the Analogy. " These observations relating to the 
 whole of Christianity, are applicable to inspiration in particular. 
 As we are in no sort judges beforehand, by what laws or rules, 
 in what degree, or by what means, it were to have been 
 expected, that God would naturally instruct us ; so upon sup- 
 position of his affording us light and instruction by revelation, 
 additional to what he has afforded us by reason and experience, 
 we are in no sort judges, by what methods, and in what pro- 
 portion, it were to be expected that this supernatural light 
 and instruction would be afiorded us. We know not before- 
 hand, what degree or kind of natural information it were to 
 be expected God would afford men, each by his own reason 
 and experience, nor how far he would enable and effectually 
 dispose them to communicate it, whatever it should be, to each 
 other, nor whether the evidence of it would be certain, highly 
 probable, or doubtful ; nor whether it would be given with 
 equal clearness and conviction to all. Nor could we guess, 
 upon any good ground I mean, whether natural knowledge, or 
 even the faculty itself, by which we are capable of attaining it, 
 reason would be given us at once, or gradually. In like 
 manner, we are wholly ignorant what degree of new know- 
 ledge it were to be expected God would give mankind by 
 revelation, upon supposition of his affording one ; or how far, 
 or in what way, he would interpose miraculously, to qualify 
 them, LO whom he should originally make the revelation, for 
 communicating the knowledge given by it ; and to secure their 
 doing it to the age in which they should live ; and to secure 
 its being transmitted to posterity. We are equally ignorant 
 whether the evidence of it would be certain, or higlily pro- 
 bable, or doubtful, or whether all who should have any degree of 
 instruction fi-om it, and any degree of evidence of its truth 
 would have the same, or whether the scheme would be revealed 
 at once, or unfolded gradually. Then he goes on on that 
 argument, and he says, " Now, since it has been shown that 
 we have no principles of reason upon which to judge before- 
 
 H
 
 — 98 — 
 
 hand, how it were to be expected revelation should have been 
 left, or what was most suitable to the Divine plan of govern- 
 ment in any of the forementioned respects, it must be quite 
 frivolous to object afterwards as to any of them against its 
 being left in one way rather than another, for this would be to 
 object against things upon account of their being different from 
 expectations which liave been shown to be without reason. 
 And thus we see that the only question concerning the truth 
 of Christianity is, whether it be a real revelation, not whether 
 it be attended with everj' circumstance which we should have 
 looked for, and concerning the authority of Scripture, whether 
 it be what it claims to be not, whether it be a. book of such 
 sort, and so promulgated, as weak men are apt to fancy a book 
 containing a Divine revelation should. And therefore neither 
 obscurity, nor seeming inaccuracy of style, nor various read- 
 ings, nor early disputes about the authors of particular parts, 
 nor any other things of the like kind, though they had been 
 much more considerable in degree than they are, could over- 
 throw the authority of the Scripture, unless the prophets, 
 apostles, or our Lord had promised that the book containing 
 the Divine revelation should be secure from those things. Nor 
 indeed can any objections overthrow such a kind of revelation 
 as the Christian claims to be, since there are no objections 
 ag"ainst the morality of it, but such as can show that there is no 
 proof of miracles wrought originally in attestation of it." Then 
 he goes on a little further, and says, " From the foregoing 
 observations, too, it will follow, and those who will thoroughly 
 examine into revelation, will find it worth remarking, that 
 there are several ways of arguing, which though just with 
 regard to other writings, are not applicable to Scripture, at 
 least not to the prophetic parts of it. We cannot argue, for 
 instance, that this cannot be the sense or intent of such a 
 passage of Scripture, for if it had, it would have been expressed 
 more plainly, or have been represented under a more apt 
 figure or hieroglyphic, yet we may justly argue thus with 
 respect to common books. And the reason of this difference 
 is very evident, that in Scripture, we are not competent judges 
 as we are in common books, how plainly it were to have been 
 expected, what is the true sense should have been expressed, 
 or under how apt an image figured. The only question is, 
 Avhat appearance there is that this is that this is the sense, and 
 scarce at all how much more determinately or accurately it 
 might have been expressed or figured." Now, in that passage, 
 he most distinctly expresses his opinion that the Scripture is 
 not like common books, to be criticised, as it is contended in these
 
 — 99 — 
 
 articles that it is, and he also most distinctly draws the difference 
 between supernatural light and revelation, and the reason of 
 man. At page 252, part ii., section 7, upon "prophecy," he 
 says, " There are two kinds of writing which bear a great resem- 
 blance to prophecy, with respect to tlie matter before us, the 
 mythological and the satirical, where the satire is to a certain 
 degree concealed." Then he deals with that part of his sub- 
 ject, and says, "And though in all just way of consideration, 
 the appearing completion of prophecies is to be allowed to be 
 thus explanatory of, and to determine, their meaning ; yet it is 
 to be remembered farther, that the ancient Jews applied the 
 prophecies to a Messiah before His coming, in much the same 
 manner as Christians do now ; and that the primitive Chris- 
 tians iuterpi-eted the prophecies respecting the state of the 
 Church, and of the Avorld in the last ages in the sense which 
 the event seems to confirm and verify. And from these things 
 it may be made appear. 3. That the showing even to a high 
 probability if that could be." I may as well state, my lord, I 
 do not know whether it was an objection actually expressed in 
 words, but it was hinted at that it was incumbent upon us to 
 contend that the prophet in his prophecy had only one object 
 before him, and that, the supernatural object so to speak. 
 Now, that has never, that I am aware of, been contended for. 
 In many instances, tliere is no doubt there was a primary and 
 a secondary sense of the prophecy. What we state is this, 
 that in no part of Dr. Rowland Williams's Essay, is there 
 any aekuowledgment whatever of the supernatural sense of the 
 prophecy, viz., that he in no part of his essay admits that the 
 prophet, so to speak, foretold. He says he was an historian of 
 cotemporaneous events, and that in no respect did he foretell 
 an actual fact. Bishop Butler dealing with an argument of 
 this kind, says, " The showing even to a high probability, if 
 that could be, that the prophets thought of some other events 
 in such predictions, and not those at all which Christians 
 allege to be completions of those predictions, or that such and 
 such prophecies are capable of being applied to other events 
 than those to which Christians would apply them. This would 
 not confute or destroy the force of the argument from pro- 
 phecy even with regard to those very instances. For observe 
 how this matter really is. If one knew such a person to be 
 the sole author of such a book, and was certainly assured or 
 satisfied to any degree, that one knew the whole of what he 
 intended in it, one should be assured or satisfied to such degree, 
 that one knew the whole meauino- of that book ; for the meaninir 
 of a book is nothing but the meaning of the author. But if 
 
 H 2
 
 — lUU — 
 
 ono know a person to liavc compiled a book out of memoirs, 
 whidi lie received from another, of vastly superior knowledge 
 in the subject of it, especially if it were a book full of great 
 intricacies and difficulties, it would in no wise follow that one 
 know the whole meaning of the book, from knowing the whole 
 meaning of the compiler for the original memoirs, i.e., the 
 author of them miirht have, and there would be no degree of 
 presumption in any cases against supposing him to have, some 
 further meaning than the compiler saw." 
 
 Now comes a passage to which I would direct the Court's 
 attention. " To say, then, that the Scriptures, and the things 
 contained in them, can have no other or further meaning than 
 those persons thought or had, who first recited or wrote them, 
 is evidently saying tha.t those persons were the original, proper, 
 and sole authors of those books, i.e., that they are not inspired, 
 which is absurd, whilst the authority of these books is under 
 examination, i.e., till you have determined they are of no 
 Divine authority at all." 
 
 Then ho says, a little lower down, " Hence may be seen to 
 Iiow little purpose those persons busy themselves, who endea- 
 vour to prove that the prophetic history is applicable to events 
 of the age in which it was written, or of ages before it. Indeed, 
 to have proved this, before there was any appearance of a 
 farther completion of it, might have answered some purpose, 
 for it might have prevented the expectation of any such farther 
 completion." And then he comes to deal with the ancient 
 heresy which is revived in this book, and which may be said 
 to have been adopted in the third century after our Lord, 
 the heresy of Porphyry about Daniel. He says, " Thus could 
 Porphyry have shown that some principal parts of the 
 Book of Daniel for instance, the seventh verse of the seventh 
 chapter, which the Christians interpreted of the latter 
 ages, was applicable to events which happened before or 
 about the age of Antiochus Epiphanos ; this might have 
 prevented them from expecting any further completion 
 of it. And unless there was then, as I think there must 
 have been, external evidence concerning that book, more 
 than is come down to us, such a discovery might have 
 been a stumbling-block in the way of Christianity itself. 
 Why ? — It is important to know, because this prophecy of 
 Daniel is distinctly denied in this review by Dr. Rowland 
 Williams. Why might it then have been a stumbling-block 
 in the way of Christianity itself? "Why," says Bishop 
 Butler, " considering the authority which our Saviour has 
 given to the book of Daniel, and how much the general scheme
 
 — 101 — 
 
 of Christianity presupposes the truth of it. But even this 
 discovery, had there heen any such, would bo of very Httlu 
 weight with reasonable men now ; if this passage, thus appli- 
 cable to events before the age of Porphyry, appears to be 
 applicable also to events which succeeded the dissolution of 
 the Roman Empire. I mention this, not at all as intending 
 to insinuate that the division of this empire into ten parts, for 
 it plainly was divided into about that number, were, alono 
 and by itself, of any moment in verifying the prophetic 
 history — but only as an example of the thing I am speaking 
 of; and thus, upon the whole" — I skip a passage — "the 
 matter of inquiry evidently must be, as above put — Whether 
 the prophecies are applicable to Christ, and to the present 
 state of the world and of the Church : applicable in such a 
 degree as to imply foresight, not whether they are capable of 
 any other applications, though I know no pretence for saying 
 the general turn of them is capable of any other." The 
 inference, therefore, which I seek to draw from those passages 
 of Butler, which T have read, is, that they utterly destroy 
 the notion that he is any authority whatever for the positions 
 maintained by Dr. Williams. He distinctly holds inspiration 
 different, not in degree, but in kind, from reason. He dis- 
 tinctly holds, even in this work, the analogy — which was not 
 like the delivery of his opinions in a sermon, but where he 
 was putting his argument for the purpose of dealing with his 
 adversary on the lowest possible ground — he distinctly holds 
 that the Holy Scriptures were inspired, and that to deny the 
 authority of this particular book of Daniel would be to deny 
 the authority of our Lord, and to put in jeopardy, by necessary 
 consequence, the whole system of Christianity. 
 
 My lord, my next quotation is from Barrow on the Dlmnity 
 of the Holy Ghost^ sermon 34, section 1 : " First it his especial 
 work " — that is, the Holy Ghost — "• to declare God's mind to 
 us : whence he is styled the Spirit of Truth, the Spirit of 
 Prophecy, the Spirit of Revelation, for that all supernatural 
 light or wisdom have ever proceeded from Him. He instructed 
 all the prophets that have been since the world began to know, 
 he enabled them to speak the mind of God concerning all 
 things present and future. Holy men, that have taught men 
 their duty and led them in the way to bliss, were but his 
 instruments speaking as they were moved by the Holy Ghost. 
 By his inspiration, the Holy Scripture, the most full and 
 certain witness of God's mind, the law and testimony by 
 which our life is to be directed and regulated, were conceived. 
 He guided the Apostles into all truth." He says, "All the
 
 — 102 — 
 
 knowledge we can pretend to in tliese things, doth proceed 
 merely from his revelation, doth wholly rely upon his 
 authority.'' 
 
 IVly lord, Burnet, in his Exposition of the Thirty-nine Articles^ 
 cannot be passed over. He is speaking on the sufficiency of 
 the Holy Scriptures to Salvation. It is the article, in fact, on 
 the canonical Scriptures. I atn reading from an edition 
 published at Oxford in 1831, and I am citing from page 106. 
 " From thence, without any further proof, we may be convinced 
 of the canon of the Old Testament. Christ does frequently 
 cite Moses and the Prophets ; he appeals to them; and though 
 lie charged the Jews of that time, chiefly their teachers and 
 rulers, with many disorders and faults, yet he never once so 
 much as insinuated that they had corrupted their law or other 
 sacred books, which, if true, had been the greatest of all those 
 abuses that they had put upon the people. Our Saviour cited 
 their books according to the translation that was then in credit 
 and common use amongst them." That is the Septuagint, of 
 course. " When one asked him which was the great com- 
 mandment, he answered, ' How readest thou V And he proved 
 the chief things relating to himself, his death, and resurrectioji, 
 from the prophecies that had gone before, which ought to have 
 been fulfilled in him. He also cites the Old Testament by a 
 threefold division of the law of Moses, the Prophets, and the 
 Psalms : according to the three orders of books into which the 
 Jews had divided it. The Psalms, which was the first among 
 the holy writino;s, beino; set for that whole volume. St. Paul 
 says that to the Jews were committed the oracles of God ; he 
 reckons that among the chief of their privileges, but he never 
 blames them for being unfaithful in this trust ; and it is certain 
 that the Jews have not corrupted the chief of those passages, 
 that we urged against them, to prove Jesus to have been the 
 Christ. So that the Old Testament, at least the translation 
 of the seventy interpreters, Avhich was in common use and in 
 high esteem among the Jews in our Saviour's time was, as to 
 the main, faithful and uncorrupted. This might be further 
 urged from wliat St. Paul says concernino; those Scriptures 
 which Timothy had learned of a child. These could be no 
 other than the books of the Old Testament. Thus, if the 
 writinos of the New Testament are acknowlediied to be of 
 Divine authority, the full testimony that they give to the 
 books of the Old Testament does sufficiently prove their 
 authority and genuineness likewise." Then he goes on with a 
 further argument on that. Now that is precisely the dilemma 
 put by Bishop Chandler, to which I referred yesterday. It is
 
 — 103 — 
 
 stated here in these words : " If the writings of the New 
 Testament are acknowledged to be of Divine authority, the 
 full testimony that they give to the books of the Old Testa- 
 ment, does sufficiently prove their authority and genuineness 
 likewise. 
 
 My lord, there is a little book which has been published 
 since this controversy began, written by a very learned person 
 — written with a view, no doubt, to this controversy ; and, 
 therefore, open to any objection which may be taken on that 
 ground — to contradict the heresies contained in this essay. 
 It is a little book called The Inspiration of the Bibk\ in five 
 lectures, delivered in Westminster Abbey, by Christopher 
 Wordsworth, Canon of Westminster, and at page 68 he 
 expresses himself in this way : " Is the Old Testament true I 
 is it from Heaven ? is it all true ? is it all inspired ? These 
 questions are now current amongst us. Books are put into 
 our hands, written, it would seem, by shrewd men, distin- 
 guished by literary attainments, and by philosophic calnmess 
 and research ; who appear to have inquired with candour and 
 impartiality into the evidences of the truth and inspiration of 
 the Old Testament, and not to have been convinced that it 
 is of Divine origin. We hear it alleged by some, that it can 
 be shown from recent investigations of geologists, that the 
 world must have existed before the date assigned to the 
 Creation by the book of Genesis. We hear it argued by 
 others, who seem to be proficients in the study of morals and 
 metaphysics, that to believe all mankind to have been involved 
 in guilt by the sin of Adam and Eve, is hardly consistent 
 with the reverence due to the justice and benevolence of God ; 
 and that it is derogatory to his wisdom and foresight, to 
 suppose that he should have destroyed his own work of 
 Creation by the general devastation of the Flood. What, 
 they ask, are we to say of such seemingly strange and 
 incredible narratives as those which are found in the Old 
 Testament, concerning the speaking of Balaam's ass and the 
 coming forth of the prophet Jonah from the whale's belly 
 after three days ? What are we to think of these things ? 
 Again, it is said b}^ some persons of high reputation among 
 us, reviving the sceptical objections of Porphyry, which were 
 exploded by St. Jerome fourteen hundred years ago, that the 
 prophecies of Daniel bear marks of having been composed 
 after the events which they profess to foretell, and, in fact, 
 are no prophecies at all. To those who may make these, and 
 all such allegations as these, impugning the truth, genuineness, 
 or inspiration of the Old Testament, we would put this
 
 — 104 — 
 
 <|no9tion — Whom Hhall wo boliovo ; you, or Jesus Clirist ? 
 You iillogo tliat there are certain things in tlic Old Testament 
 whicli you cannot reconcile with the rcsnlts of your physical 
 rcserches, or with your moral and metaphysical theories ; and 
 you, therefore, reject the Old Testament, and require us to 
 surrender it in deference to your authority. J3ut in this great 
 question — in this most momentous question of eternal life or 
 eternal death — we ask again, whom shall we believe, whom 
 siiall we follow? You, or Jesus Christ? Shall we imagine 
 that you, the creatures of a day, have a clearer insight into 
 the laws of nature than He who made the worlds, and who 
 controlled the laws of nature by the utterance of a single 
 word." And then the writer goes on to apply further the 
 same argument, and he says with regard to the history of 
 Jonah (which I shall have to deal with), with regard to tlie 
 history of Ualaam, and with regard to the history of Daniel 
 especially, that they were all acknowledged as genuine by the 
 Holy Spirit in the New Testament. Especially I would 
 mention here, to save my citing the authority again, that both 
 the Miracle of Jonah and the Prophecies of Daniel are 
 impugned in the review of Dr. Williams. Therefore, I will 
 read this to save the necessity of doing so again when I touch 
 upon those passages of the review. " Thus again," Dr. 
 AVordsworth says, " as to the history of Jonah in the whale''s 
 belly, it may be a difficulty with some, but in reading that 
 history, every Christian student, who believes and adores his 
 Blessed Redeemer, will recollect that Jesus Christ has adopted 
 and authenticated that history, and has applied and appro- 
 priated it to Himself. ' As Jonas was three days and three 
 nights in the whale's bell}^ so (says Christ) shall the Son of 
 Man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.' 
 The Christian reader will observe that Christ's reference to 
 the history of Jonah is interwoven with Christ's prophecy 
 concerning himself; and he will remember that Christ's word 
 was proved to be true by the fulfilment of that prophecy. 
 Christ was three days and three nights in the heart of the 
 earth, and he then raised himself. Thus Christ's authorization 
 of Jonah's history is verified by the fulfilment of Christ's 
 prophecy concerning himself, of whom Jonah was a type. 
 Let us not read the history of Jonah by the feeble glimmerings 
 of a purblind sciolism, but by the clear light of Christ's 
 glorious Gospel, and we shall see the proof of its truth in 
 His burial and resurrection. Thus these Scriptural diffi- 
 culties are dissolved by a spiritual alchymy in the crucible of 
 faith.
 
 ~ 105 — 
 
 " Once more the unbeliever may allege that the prophecies of 
 Daniel correspond so minutely with the events that they pro- 
 fess to predict that they must be posterior to those events. 
 A strange alleoation ! As if there were any past or future 
 with God ; as if He, who spake by the prophets, does not see 
 all things present at once. It is enough for us to know tliat 
 the Book of Daniel, as it is in our hands now, was in the 
 hands of the Jewish nation of our Lord's age, and was received 
 by them as inspired, and that what they received as inspired, 
 was also received as such by Jesus Christ. Indeed, he expressly 
 owns Daniel as a prophet. ' When ye shall see the abomina- 
 tion of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet.' Daniel 
 the prophet may be no prophet to the unbeliever ; the book of 
 Daniel may be a forgery to the sceptic of the nineteenth cen- 
 tury ; but to us, my'Christian friends, let him be Daniel the 
 prophet, for he was Daniel the prophet to his own nation, he 
 was Daniel the prophet to Jesus Christ." I take the liberty 
 of adding to that remark that he must be Daniel the prophet 
 to a clergyman of the Church of England, so long at least as 
 he subscribes to the tliirty-nine Articles. 
 
 My lord, there is an explanation of inspiration given by 
 Archbishop Tillotson, which I do not like to pass over. It 
 will be found in the 19th or 12th volume, as they may happen 
 to be bound up, and page 100. It is upon the text of the 
 faith or persuasion of a Divine revelation. "But without 
 faith it is impossible to please God," and it is the fourth 
 sermon and the second paragraph. " The question is, what 
 assurance miracles give that those persons who are said to be 
 the penmen of the books of Scripture were divinely inspired.*" 
 
 It is important to see how these two matters are put on 
 the same grounds by all eminent divines. " The miracles 
 (under which I comprehend the prediction of future events) 
 which Moses, and the Prophets, and the Apostles, wrought, 
 were testimonies from Heaven that they were Divine persons, 
 and that what they said was to be credited, and consequently 
 if they gave out themselves for such, that they were such.'' 
 Then he deals with tliat matter. Then he says, " That the 
 penmen of the New Testament were persons endued with a 
 miraculous power, is plain, because they were most of them 
 Apostles, and for the rest we have no reason to doubt of it ; 
 those extraordinary gifts being so common in the primitive 
 times. However, so long as there is nothing in the rest that 
 is dissonant from, or contrary to, what those wrote, of whose 
 inspiration we are assured, and these their ' writing having 
 always been received in the Church,' as of Divine inspiration.
 
 — lOG — 
 
 wliich wo may well prcsumo was not rashly done, and without 
 grounds wo liavo no reason to doubt as to them ; or if they 
 wore., so long as they contain nothing that is contrary to those 
 who wore un(j[uestionably inspired, the matter is of no dan- 
 gerous consequence ; and as^for the penmen of the Old Testa- 
 ment, wo are assured that they were all inspired by one in 
 the Now Testament that was unquestionably so, St. Paul, who 
 tolls us that all Scripture is of Divine inspiration, moaning 
 the books of the Old Testament which were called by that 
 name Kay f|"X')7' or by way of eminency. But if any one 
 inquire farther how far the penmen of Scripture were inspired 
 in the writing of those books, whether only so far as to be 
 secured from mistake in the delivery of any message or doc- 
 trine from God, or in the relation of any history or matter of 
 fact, yet so as they were left every man to liis own style and 
 manner of expression, or that everything they wrote was im- 
 mediately dictated to them, and tliat not only the sense of it, 
 but the very words and phrases by which they express things, 
 and that they were merely instruments or penmen, I shall not 
 take upon me to determine. I shall only say this in general, 
 that considering the end of this inspiration, which was to 
 inform the world certainly of the mind and will of God, it is 
 necessary for every man to believe that the inspired penmen 
 of Scripture were so far assisted as was necessary to this end ; 
 and he that thinks upon good grounds that this end cannot be 
 secured unless every word and syllable were immediately dic- 
 tated, he had reason to believe it was so ; but if any man 
 upon good grounds thinks the end of writing the Scripture 
 may be sufficiently secured without that, he hath no reason to 
 conclude that God, who is not wanting in what is necessary, is 
 guilty of doing what is superfluous. And if any man is of 
 opinion that Moses might write the history of those actions 
 which he himself did or was present at, without an imme- 
 diate revelation of them ; or that Solomon, by his natural and 
 acquired wisdom, might speak those wise sayings which are in 
 his proverbs, or the Evangelists might write what they heard 
 and saw, or what they had good assurance of from others, as 
 St. Luke tells he did ; or that St. Paul might write for his 
 cloak and parchments at Troas, and salute by name his 
 friends and brethren ; or that he might advise Timothy to 
 drink a little wine, &c., without the immediate dictate of the 
 Spirit of God, he seems to have reason on his side. For that men 
 may, without an immediate revelation, write those things which 
 they think, without a revelation, seems very plain. And that 
 they did so, there is this probable argument for it, because we
 
 — 107 — 
 
 find the Evangelists, in relating the discourses of Christ, are 
 very from agreeing in the particular expressions and words, 
 though they do agree in the substance of the discourses ; but 
 if the words had been dictated by the Spirit of God, they 
 must have agreed in them. For when St. Luke differs from 
 St. Matthew, in relating what our Saviour did, it is impos- 
 sible that they should botli relate it right, as to the very 
 words and forms of expression ; but they both relate the sub- 
 stance of what he said. And if it had been of concernment 
 that everything that they wrote should be dictated ad apicem 
 to a tittle, by the Spirit of God, it is of the same concernment 
 state that the providence of God should have secured the 
 Scriptures since to a tittle from tlie least alteration, which 
 that it is not done, appears by the various readings both of 
 the Old and New Testament, concerning which no man can 
 infallibly say that this is right and not the other." Then he 
 winds up with these observations. " It seems sufficient in this 
 matter to assert that the Spirit of God did reveal to the pen- 
 men of the Scriptures what was necessary to be revealed ; and 
 as to all other things, that he did superintend them in the 
 writing of it so far as to secure them from any material error 
 or mistake in which they have delivered." I thought it right 
 to read. that passage to your lordship, coming as it does from 
 Archbishop Tillotson, and it contains the very least strong 
 statement, if I may use the expression, on the subject of inspi- 
 ration, that I think can be found in any clerical writer. And 
 yet your lordship will most clearly observe how distinct the 
 position of that writer is from that which is contended for as 
 lawful in the essay of Dr. Rowland Williams. It would be 
 quite inconsistent with the opinion there expressed by Arch- 
 bishop Tillotson, that the sacred writers should have been 
 mistaken as to the history of Abraham, as to the facts re- 
 corded by Abraham, as to the prophecy of Daniel, or as to the 
 prophecy of Jonah ; such positions would be quite inconsistent 
 with the view of Archbishop Tillotson. He does not go very 
 much further on that point than Bishop Bull does in his 
 sermon on the cloak and parchments which were left at Troas, 
 in which he says that it is a perfectly lawful opinion to hold 
 that there were passages which were not directly dictated by 
 the Holy Ghost, though there was no passage which could by 
 possibility contain a falsehood and although every material 
 fact was unquestionably inspired by the Holy Spirit. 
 
 My lord, if you bring those commentaries to bear on the 
 construction of the article it places it very much in the light 
 in which I originally endeavoured to put it before your lord-
 
 — 108 — 
 
 sliip. It nhows that such a license as is claimed here, viz. : 
 of sayiiii; this or that narrative is altogether a human fiction, 
 tliis or that account in Scripture when the words are used, 
 " Clod said so and so," or (confining it to tlie one which is 
 more immediately hcforo the Court,) " God did tempt Abra- 
 ham," that it would bo utterly inconsistent with any view that 
 any writer in the Church of England of eminence, or not of 
 eminence, has ever held to bring that within the notion of 
 inspiration ascribed to Scripture ; I may again repeat what I 
 said yesterday, that in not one single author which has been 
 cited out of the immense catalogue produced before the Court, 
 is such a position to be found. 
 
 Now, my lord, Dr. Tait, the Bishop of London, was cited by 
 my learned friend, in a book called Dangers and Safeguards, 
 and there was a short passage in it which I should like to add 
 to that which my learned friends read, and then I will leave 
 it with some confidence in your lordship's hands, to say 
 whether that furnishes any authority for the teaching of Dr. 
 Williams. At page 9, of that book, you will find this pas- 
 sage, " Of course if a man hangs so lightly to the faith of the 
 Lord Jesus and the Apostles, that he looks on the Bible as 
 on Homer or Herodotus, the whole aspect of our controversy 
 with him is changed ; he cannot then be supposed to be arguing 
 within the Church of England, nor within the limits of the 
 Christianity of the Apostles, or of Christ. We must arrange 
 our argument on quite different grounds ; but if he allows that 
 there is such a thing as what the Lord and his Apostles called 
 Scripture, and that the Old and New Testaments are that 
 Scripture, then we ask him to remember that Scripture is the 
 word of God." If, my lord, we substitute for Homer or 
 Herodotus, Luther or Milton, does it make any very great 
 difi:erence in the argument ? The case taken by Dr. Williams, 
 is Luther or Milton ; the case put by Dr. Tait, is Homer or 
 Herodotus. I do not not think, my lord, his authority in this 
 work can be cited against his subscription to that unanimous 
 declai-ation of the English Episcopate which I read to you. 
 
 My lord, considering the general tone of this Essay, and 
 the subject which it reviews, it becomes, I think, of importance, 
 and it becomes germaine to the legal inquiry now instituted 
 before your lordship, to see whether the kind of literature 
 which is so earnestly recommended in these pages be, or be 
 not wholly, and entirely inconsistent with the Thirty-nine 
 Articles of lleligion, and the Formularies of the Church. 
 The book itself is a review of three works by the distinguished 
 gentleman Baron Bunsen. One is Of Egypt's Place in History^
 
 — 109 — 
 
 one is God in History, and the other is Hippolytm. Now, as 
 ])r. Williams himself admits, Baron Bunsen is not bound to 
 the Thirty-nine Articles, and he may say a great many things 
 therefore which Dr. Williams is restrained from being able to 
 publish ; but it is unfortunate that in tliose books all the 
 historical facts of revelation are more or less denied. If I may 
 use an expression that the Germans have introduced, there 
 remains the terminology of revelation ; there remain expres- 
 sions of regard for the Holy Scriptures, great admiration for 
 the morality and philosophy of our Lord, great admiration 
 for the moral element in the prophecies ; but all the foots out 
 of which these attributes are deduced by our Divines, and by 
 the Catholic Church generally, are put in issue. I have been 
 brought up in the teaching that the gospels doctrine is derived 
 from its history ; that it is not a series of precepts or moral 
 maxims, but that it is God''s teaching by act, example, and 
 practice j teaching in the concrete not in the abstract, if I 
 may so speak. To deny the story of Moses altogether, to 
 deny the story of Abraham, to deny the prophecies of Isaiah, 
 Daniel, and Jonah; to deny that such persons ever lived, or 
 that such facts did take place, but to say that there is a moral 
 residue, so to speak, which is very valuable, is, in our common 
 and plain English understanding, to deny the Bible. Now, I 
 say, that it is unfortunate that the books so reviewed should 
 have led to those conclusions. First, the history ef the Old 
 Testament is denied, then the predictive element in the pro- 
 phecies is denied, then the miracles of the New Testament are 
 denied, then all the great events of our Saviour"'s life are 
 dramatised and spiritualised, and (I do not know what word 
 exactly to invent) rationalised, as my learned friend suggests, 
 and allegorised away, until you are left with a bundle of 
 poems, and songs, and myths, and maxims, and no living 
 being, or creature whatever, no actual fact connected with the 
 Bible. It is unfortunate that a person holding a cure of souls 
 in England, should have reviewed works of that description 
 without passing censure upon such opinions. It is more 
 unfortunate that he should have praised almost indiscrimin- 
 ately all those works, and it is most unfortunate that he 
 should so have blended his own opinions with them, that it is 
 not until his advocate rises in Court, that it is suggested that 
 the words so used, and which bear an obvious sense prima 
 facie, must be totally changed before you can understand Dr. 
 Williams"' meaning, that is to say, before you can bring him 
 within the liberties of the Formularies, and take him out of 
 the license in which he has really indulged.
 
 — 110 — 
 
 Now, my lonl, I uuiko these general remarks, because I 
 think it my duty ; 1 am very reluctant to do so, but I tliink it 
 my duty to draw 3'our lord8liip''s attention (I will do so as 
 shortly as 1 can ) generally to the system of the so called 
 German divinity, which it is intended, as I contend, to import 
 into the teaching of the English ministry, and which I find 
 exj)ressed here in this preface. " An attempt to illustrate the 
 advantage derivable to the cause of religious and moral truth, 
 from a free handling in a becoming spirit of subjects peculiarly 
 liable to sutler by the repetition of conventional language, and 
 from traditional methods of treatment." Those ambiguous 
 words taken with this review together, must, in common sense 
 and common fairness, be interpreted as showing the intention 
 of the writer to depart from some ancient track, from some 
 traditional method, and what they call " conventional lan- 
 guage," and to introduce a new system. Now, though the 
 Bishop of Salisbury, whom I unworthily represent, is the last 
 person to wish to restrain the exercise of the reason of his 
 clergy in any manner connected with criticism, or interpreta- 
 tion, or inquiries appertaining to historical research, or 
 physical science ; yet 1 am here on his behalf, to say, that, if, 
 under the guise of those fair-seeming words it be intended to 
 rationalise away all the historical facts of Scripture, and leave 
 us with this bundle of lifeless moral maxims, that that is a 
 system of teaching which it is his bounden duty, as at present 
 advised, not to permit within his diocese. 
 
 Now, my lord, I must show you that this Bunseris Biblical 
 Researches, and this God in Egypt, and this Hippolytus, are a 
 sequel of a train of reasoning of a particular school, which it 
 will be impossible, with any fairness, not to consider as dia- 
 metrically opposite to the teaching of the Church of England. 
 
 Dr. Deane. — I have not the least wish to interrupt my 
 learned friend. I thought we were discussing the admissibility 
 of certain articles bearing on points found from page 51 to 
 page 92. I have no hesitation in saying at once, that if my 
 learned friend is going into the history of German literature, I 
 am very sorry for the Court, which has expressed its opinion 
 that it will go on sitting de die in diem, because it certainly 
 would be an interruption to other business of the Court I 
 protest, in the interests of the public, and strictly in the 
 interests and for the sake of keeping the practice of the Court 
 regular, against the introduction of what may be the danger 
 of the German system. 
 
 Dr. Phillimore. — If my learned friend has ceased his inter- 
 ruption, I will continue my argument. My learned friend is
 
 — Ill — 
 
 quite right in saying tliat we are discussing the admissibility 
 of these articles, but he is quite wrong in supposing that I 
 have forgotten it. The question is a very serious one. The 
 question is whether I am not entitled to show that, under the 
 garb of this essay, there is an attempt made to introduce 
 opinions fatal to the system of Christianity taught in this 
 country. 
 
 Dean of the Arches. — I am certainly exceedingly reluctant 
 that we should enter into such a field of disquisitiou as that 
 which you were about to cormnonce, but when I remember that, 
 for five whole days, the counsel against the admission of these 
 articles went into the consideration of almost every possible 
 topic that the ingenuity of man could bring to bear on the 
 question, and some which I thought it was beyond the inge- 
 nuity of man to make applicable to the question — when I gave 
 them that latitude because they Avere for the defence, I cannot 
 deny to you the same opportunity of taking your own course, 
 however painful the consequences may be to the Court, and 
 to the public. I very deeply regret the manner in which this 
 question, perhaps necessarily, has come under the consideration 
 of the Court, because I cannot disguise from myself that ques- 
 tions of the deepest importance and of the greatest difficulty 
 have been raised, which I did hope might have been disposed 
 of, and that this case might have been disposed of without the 
 Court being called upon to pronounce any opinion upon them 
 whatsoever. I do trust still, that in the result the Court will be 
 able to look at the admissibility of these articles, and to give 
 a judicial decision without venturing upon ground that it 
 really trembles to think this Court should be called upon to 
 tread. I have made these observations — I will not stop you, 
 for I think I am not justified in stopping you, when I consider 
 the latitude which was taken on the other side. 
 
 Dr. Phillimore. — Yes, my lord, that was a latitude to 
 which T, appearing for the prosecutor, offered no objection 
 whatever, and, my lord, if I felt I was about to embark into 
 the whole question of German literatnre, I should feel that I 
 was committing an act, not only of folly, but almost of crime 
 towards the Court. I am going to do no such thing, and if 
 my learned friond, in his impatient haste, to prevent me laying 
 before the Court the real opinions of his client, had not im- 
 properly interrupted me, he would have learned that what I 
 intended to do was to show that Bunsen's opinion, who is here 
 reviewed, nmst be taken in connection with a certain school in 
 Germany, that these opinions might be laid before you con- 
 cisely and shortly, without, by any means, entering into the
 
 — 112 — 
 
 whole liistory of Gorman pliilosophy, much less of German 
 h'ter.iture. 
 
 My lonl, I hope that no observation wliich the Court ad- 
 dresses to me upon the mode of conducting the case, will fail 
 of producing its effect, and I at once admit, that if, in the 
 Court's opinion, tlie field upon which I was about to enter in, 
 perhaps, a wrong notion of the discharge of my duty, would 
 lead the Court astray from the real issue which is before it, 
 and would embarrass it in deciding the legal point as to the 
 admissibility of these articles, that I should, whatever my own 
 opinion may be, bow to that suggestion of the Court, and not 
 enter upon that part of the argument. My lord, it is perfectly 
 true that your lordship sits here to decide, as far as it can be 
 reduced within its limits, a legal question, but it is also most 
 true, and I am sure your lordship would be the last person to 
 deny it, that in a question of this description it is almost im- 
 possible to draw the line of demarcation between the law and 
 the divinity, and that, with the best intention on the part of 
 the counsel, it must occasionally happen that such a line is 
 overstepped. 
 
 My lord, I made some remarks, at the opening of my ad- 
 dress, upon the peculiar state of the English Church with 
 regard to her jurisdiction, having no other court but the 
 present in which she could proceed to obtain a declaration of 
 what is her doctrine. Whether that be expedient or not ex- 
 pedient, whether it be the result of accident or intention, 
 whether it ought to be amended by the legislature, or to be 
 left in its present condition, with these grave considerations I 
 have nothing at present to do. But the fact remains, and I 
 must take the liberty, therefore, of observing, that it warrants, 
 to some extent, the course which I have ventured to pursue in 
 advocating the admission of these articles. If your lordship 
 tells me, as I conceive you do now by implication, that the 
 endeavour to show that what the author here reviewed was 
 connected with a school of opinion wholly foreign to the British 
 Church, would lead into a foreign issue (to use a legal expres- 
 sion), and really would not avail in the end to induce your 
 lordship to admit these articles ; I can only repeat that, as- 
 suming that to be the meaning of what your lordship has said, 
 I should abstain from entering into that part of the question. 
 
 Dean of the Arches. — I wish you to understand. Dr. Philli- 
 more, that I have not called upon you to abstain at all, but, 
 on the contrary, I have overruled the objection which was 
 taken by Dr. Deane to the course which you were pursuing. 
 But for one moment let us consider the state in which this
 
 — 113 — 
 
 case is. This is a prosecution commenced against Dr. Wil- 
 liams, and he is charged in these articles with having held 
 doctrines which are contrary to the Thirty-nine Articles, 
 and to the Book of Common Prayer, also to certain passages 
 which are cited from the Scriptures in those articles. Now, 
 the ordinary duty of the Court would be, what it has had 
 occasion to perform before, a difficult duty, but having not one 
 atom, I might almost say, of the difficulty which applies to 
 this case, to look at the passages which are produced, and 
 which are charged to be heretical, to compare them with the 
 meaning of the articles alleged to be impugned, and with such 
 parts of the liturgy as are also adduced in proof of the impro- 
 priety of those passages, and reference also might be made to 
 the Calendar. Now, that is the ordinary duty of the Court, 
 and that is the ultimate duty it will have to discharge. But 
 I cannot shut my eyes to this, that when I am called upon to 
 perform the duty of examining these Thirty-nine Articles, I 
 may be under the necessity of putting my construction and 
 interpretation upon them. There is scarcely any end to the 
 disquisition which may arise upon a subject of that descrip- 
 tion. It is not for me to stop you or to curtail your argument. 
 It is for me to hear all you think it is fitting and proper for 
 rae to hear on behalf of your client — to take it into considera- 
 tion ultimately, and then to form my own decision. And it 
 would be infinitely better and safer for the cause of justice 
 that this Court should be detained, though without necessity, 
 than that anything should be shut out which by possibility 
 could bear on the momentous questions which have been raised 
 and discussed originally on the other side. Therefore follow 
 your own course. 
 
 Dr. Phillimore. — Before I proceed with my argument, let 
 me draw your lordship's attention to what appears at the 
 bottom of the 66th page of this work of Dr. Williams. "Yet 
 the stress which he lays on the moral element atones for his 
 sophistry as regards the predictive. On the whole, even in 
 England, there is a wide gulf between the argument of our 
 genuine critics, with the convictions of our most learned 
 clergy, on the one side, and the assumptions of pojwilar decla- 
 mation on the other. This may be seen on a comparison of 
 Kidder with Keith." And what follows? "But in Germany 
 there has been a pathway streaming with light from Eichhorn 
 to Ewald, aided by tlie poetical penetration of Herder, and 
 the philological researches of Gesenius, throughout which the 
 value of the moral element has been progressively raised, and 
 that of the directly predictive, whether secular or Messianic, 
 
 1
 
 — 114 — 
 
 has been lowered." My lord, tho whole of that question was 
 noticed hy Dr. Williams. In this review he recommends, 
 and tho question is, whetlier it is conipetent for him so to do ; 
 he recommends a particular course of study, if I may say so; he 
 recommends a particular class of authors to the attention of 
 tho l^lni^lisli people. Ho is a honeficed cler<;yman, and if I 
 show that ho is reconnnending authors who have denied all 
 the historical facts of tho Gospel, would that not have some 
 bearing perhaps on the construction of his language in those 
 parts which are directly objected in the Articles ? However, 
 my lord, after what your lordship has said, and with a wish 
 which I am sure is quite compatible with the discharge of my 
 duty to my client, with my wish to do everything that can be 
 suggested to ease the enormous burden, perhaps improperly, 
 but so necessarily, thrown on the Court, I think that tlic ob- 
 servations which I have to make, may, instead of being par- 
 ticular, be quite general, and that after the citation of an 
 authority upon the general bearing of that class of teaching, I 
 may proceed with the rest of my argument. By that means, 
 my lord, I shall not wholly leave unsaid what I was desirous 
 of pointing out to the Court, and at the same time, the Court 
 mav take it rather as a part of my speech, perhaps, than as a 
 direct authority which it is bound to examine into. Now, my 
 lord, that will certainly save the Court, I think, from any 
 embarrassment which might arise, and will not necessitate 
 any reply as to the doctrines of the schools in Germany, 
 beyond one of the same general character as that which I am 
 about to make to you. 
 
 Now, my lord, the argument may be almost taken from the 
 very words of Dr. Williams. He says that the school of 
 thought which he recommends is one in which the predictive 
 element of prophecy, whether secular or Messianic, has been 
 lowered. And he says also, in note 1, to page 66. " Of 
 prophecies, in the sense of prognostications, I utterly deny 
 that there is any instance delivered by one of the illustrious 
 Diadoche, whom the Jewish Church comprised in the name of 
 prophets, and I shall regard Cyrus as an exception, when I 
 believe the 137th Psalm to have been composed by David. 
 Nay, I will go further, and assert that the contrary belief, the 
 hypothesis of prognostication, is in irreconcilable oppugnancy 
 to our Lord's declaration, that the times hath the Father 
 reserved to himself." That is a note of Coleridge, I think, in 
 his Memoir of Cary. And this is the mode in which the 
 teaching in the review mainly is conveyed. It is conveyed by 
 extracts of a character wholly at variance with the teaching of
 
 — 115 — 
 
 tlio Church, from other persons, sometimes followed by no 
 mark of approbation or disapprobation, and sometimes by a 
 mark of positive approbation, but in no case I think through- 
 out the review with any disapprobation of opinions, which are 
 on the face of them at variance with the teaching of the 
 English Church. I make these observations as falling within 
 the scope of the question, what it is competent in a clergyman 
 to write and promulgate under the guise of being merely a 
 reviewer. 
 
 Now, my lord, perhaps I unnecessarily alarmed your lord- 
 ship by my reference to the German school. At all events, I 
 was only going to refer your lordship to one or two passages 
 in a book of considerable authority of an English writer ; but I 
 will content myself with referring generally to Dr. Mills's 
 admirable book on the Mythical Interpretation of the Gospels 
 (pages 29 to 31 ; and 87 to 90 set forth the doctrine of 
 Strauss). I would add, too, the Defence of the Faith, by Mr. 
 Robins. In these works will be found a review of the conse- 
 quences which have come from those doctrines which are 
 represented as making " a pathway streaming with light from 
 Eichhorn to Ewald." I was only about to show that in fact 
 all those writers who are here mentioned with praise and 
 eulogy, and with whom the author reviewed is connected, 
 which is the legal bearing of my remark. I was about to 
 show your lordship, from their authority, that these writers 
 had proceeded throughout with this kind of teaching, viz., 
 abandoning the facts and materials of history, and retaining 
 just as much of the moral part of it as they thought con- 
 venient, not building on the theory of revelation an explana- 
 tion of what was admitted to be revealed, but, on the contrary, 
 speculating first what it was probable would or would not be 
 revealed, and then judging of revelation by its agreement or 
 disagreement with his preconceived theories. 
 
 My lord, if I were to cite to you all the works which have 
 been written on this subject, perhaps I should not carry this 
 point any further. And after deliberating as well as I can, 
 while proceeding with my speech, on what your lordship has 
 said, 1 think I will abstain altogether from referring to any 
 other work than that of the essayist, Dr. Williams himself, 
 and I will make that statement of mine a part of my speech, 
 to be contradicted by my leaaned friend in his reply, if he 
 finds that he can conscientiously do so. Of course one cannot 
 always make up one"'s mind immediately on a point of this 
 sort, but reflecting on what your lordship has said, I think 
 it will be the justest course towards the Court, and no injury 
 
 I 2
 
 --116 — 
 
 towards my client ; and this I would pray your lordship to 
 observe, it throws light on those strange and unusual expres- 
 sions of Dr. Williams, the effect of which it has been at- 
 tempted to do away with by suggesting that they are only extra- 
 vagant expressions of ordinary ideas. They are no such thing. 
 Tlioy have a meaning ; a significant meaning of their own, 
 and that significant meaning points in every instance to an 
 abandonment of what he calls the traditional mode of teaching, 
 and to the introduction of a new mode of teaching; that new mode 
 of teaching I charge to be a departure from the facts of revela- 
 tion, with a substitution of pure speculation in their place. 
 If tliat be so, it is contrary to the doctrines of the formularies 
 of the Church of England. I do not know, my lord — I shall 
 be thankful for any suggestion from the Court on this point — 
 I do not know whether it would fall within your lordship's 
 notion of a strict bearing on the admissibility of the articles, 
 if I were to pursue a course which I had also intended to 
 adopt, viz., that of pointing out that these notions here 
 paraded before your lordship, in this writing, are derived from 
 Avhat I nmst consider an unhallowed and suspicious source, 
 viz., either are allied to, or are identical with, the published 
 opinions of acknowledged English deists during the last cen- 
 tury ; or whether your lordship would include such a refer- 
 ence as this within the spirit of your prohibition. 
 
 Dean of the Arches. — 1 say nothing of the kind. 
 
 Dr. Phillimore. — Then I will say a word upon that subject, 
 my lord, and make that a head and branch of my argument, 
 and if your lordship should feel a doubt as to the tendency 
 and scope of this essay, it would surely be a legal ground in 
 this Ecclesiastical Court for viewing with suspicion, and I 
 might go further, for visiting with admonition opinions which 
 were, however, identical with those promulgated by writers 
 avowedly not Cliristian, with those of the deists. 
 
 My lord, in the '•'■Rejections on the Revolution of France^'' 
 written by Mr. Burke, you will find observations at page 171 
 of volume v. of his works. " I hear on all hands that a 
 cabal, calling itself philosophic, receives the glory of many of 
 the late proceedings, and that their opinions and systems are 
 the true actuating spirit of the whole of them ; I have heard of 
 no party in En^-land, literary or political, at any time known 
 by such a description. It is not with you composed of those 
 men, is it ? whom the vulgar, in their blunt, homely style, 
 commonly called Atheists and Infidels ! If it be, I admit that 
 we too have had writers of that description, who made some 
 noise in their day. At present they repose in lasting obli-
 
 — 117 — 
 
 vion,"''' That was a mistake. The predictive eleinent was not 
 in Mr. Burke, when he said that " those born within the last 
 forty years had read one word of OolHns, and ToUmd, and 
 Tindall, and Chubb and Morgan, and that whole race, who 
 called themselves Freethinkers. Who now reads Bolingbrokc ? 
 who ever read him through ? ask the booksellers of London, 
 what is become of these lights in the world 1 In a few years 
 their few successors will go to the family vault of all the Capu- 
 iets. But whatever they were, or are, with us, they were and 
 are wholly unconnected individuals. With us they kept the 
 common nature of their kind, and were not gregarious." 
 
 Now, in these writings of Collins, Toland, Tyndal, Chubb, 
 and Morgan, I have found a great many of the positions which 
 are contended for in this Review, and especially I find that 
 the points which the Deists were most anxious to establish, 
 were, that the prophecies of Isaiah and Daniel did not apply 
 to our Lord, and that such acts as the offering up of Isaac by 
 Abraham could not have been a matter of Divine command. 
 It may seem a little singular that those should be the points 
 upon which we have found it our duty in a great measure to 
 lay articles against Dr Williams. It is not singular to those 
 who are acquainted with the literature of the German School, 
 because you will find in the earlier history of that literature 
 many of those discarded works of infidels of Great Britain were 
 translated, and found favour in the eyes of Continental, but 
 especially German, writers ; therefore, it is not so sti'ange as 
 it may appear, but it is historically curious to see how heresies, 
 so to speak, come round again — Germans adopting the dis- 
 carded doctrines of the English Deists, and a simple English- 
 man, or Welchman, imagining himself full of research and 
 wisdom while adopting the German views as new discoveries, 
 which discoveries had been derived originally from the English 
 Deists, these English Deists doing little more than repeat the 
 exploded heresies of Porphyry in the third century. A book 
 which is well known upon this point, in which a great many of 
 those writers are collected together, is Leland's Deisiical 
 Writers ; and in the first and second volumes the Court will 
 see a good many passages in support of what I have stated. 
 I have found the same difficulty that Burke anticipated in 
 getting the original books themselves at the hands of book- 
 sellers (for I am happy to say they have gone as I venture 
 humbly to hope these Essays and Revieivs may go, to the 
 limbo of forgotten things) but I have found one or two copies 
 with great difficulty, and where I have been able to verify 
 Leland, he is correct in his stat«iients. There is also a good
 
 — 118 — 
 
 wketch I tliiiik of the wliolc matter to bo found in a book 
 recently published, called a A Defence of Faith ^ by Mr. Robins. 
 Cliapter iv. is a chapter on Enolish Deism, in which the Court 
 will lind, perhaps, a very convenient sunnnary of the doctrines 
 by those persons maintained. He takes up the history as 
 early as Lord Herbert of Cherbury, who, singularly enough, 
 was the brother of the pious George Herbert. He then goes 
 into what it will not be necessary to do more than advert to ; 
 he touches upon Hobbes's Works, and he comes down to 
 those authors to whom I have referred. One was a person of 
 the name of lilount : he was born in 1(554, and died in 1693 ; 
 another was Toland — he was born in 1670, and died in 1792 ; 
 and another was Collins, who was one of the principal, and 
 who was born in 1676, and died in 1729 : he wrote a Discourse 
 on Free-Thinking, and he wrote also a Discourse on the Grounds 
 and Beasons of the Christian JRevelation, not a wholly immate- 
 rial fact with reference to this book. Your lordship will 
 remember how Bishop Chandler is spoken of in Dr. ^Villiams"'s 
 Essay, and how very incorrectly this bishop is stated to have 
 thought that there were only twelve Old Testament Messianic 
 Predictions, whereas, he says he has only selected twelve out 
 of a vast number. Bishop Chandler's book Avas written in 
 answer to this Collins. His proposition was, tliat Christianity 
 was founded upon Judaism, or the New Testament upon the 
 Old Testament, and if the proof the New Testament from the 
 Old Testament were invalid, then Christianity would be false. 
 We have in this Essay a denial more especially of the prophe- 
 cies of Daniel, and the prophecies of Isaiah. I will refer you 
 to those passages in Leland in which they are mentioned, and 
 to one or two more. The whole history of Collins is given in 
 Leland against Deistical Writers, vol. i., page 108, in his 
 sixth letter ; and he gives, among other statements, this : — 
 " Such was this gentleman's zeal against Christianity, that 
 some years after he thought fit to attack it in another way, 
 which was more subtil and more dangerous. He published a 
 Discourse on the Grounds a^id Reasons of the Christian Heligion, 
 Loudon, 1724, 8vo., as if his design had been to do real ser- 
 vice to Christianity by establishing it upon a sure and solid 
 foundation. The scheme he lays down is this : that our Sa- 
 viour and his Apostles put the whole proof of Christianity 
 solely and entirely upon the prophecies of the Old Testament. 
 That if these proofs are valid, Christianity is established upon 
 its true foundation ; but if they are invalid, and the arguments 
 brought from thence be not conclusive, and the prophecies 
 cited from thence not fulfilled, Christianity has no just founda-
 
 — 119 — 
 
 tion, and is therefore false. Accordingly, he sets himself to 
 show that tlie prophecies cited in the New Testament from the 
 Old in proof of Ohristianit}^ four or five of which he particu- 
 larly considers are only typical and allegorical proofs ; and 
 that allegorical proofs are no proofs, according to scholastic 
 rules, i. e., as he plainly intends it according to the rules of 
 sound reason and common sense. He asserts that the expec- 
 tation of the Messiah did not obtain among the Jews 
 till a little before the time of our Saviour's appearing, 
 when they were under the oppression of the Romans, and 
 that the Apostles put a new interpretation upon the 
 Jewish books, which was not agreeable to the obvious and 
 literal meaning of those books, and was contrary to the 
 sense of the Jewish nation. That Christianity deriveth 
 all its authority from the Old Testament, and is wholly 
 revealed there — not literally, but mystically and allegorically 
 — and that, therefore, Christianity is the allegorical sense of 
 the Old Testament, and is not improperly called Mystical 
 Judaism : and that, consequently, the Old Testament is, 
 properly speaking, the sole true canon of Christians. That 
 the allegorical reasoning is set up by St. Paul and the other 
 Apostles, as the true and only reasoning proper to bring all 
 men to the faith of Christ, and all other methods of reasoning 
 are wholly discarded. Thus it appeareth that the evident 
 design of this author's book is to show that the only foundation 
 on which Christianity is built is false. That the first pub- 
 lishers of the Gospel laid the whole support and credit of 
 Christ's Divine mission, and of the religion he taught, upon 
 pretended Jewish prophecies, applied in a sense which had no 
 foundation in the prophecies themselves, and contrary to the 
 plain original meaning and intention of those prophecies 
 themselves. And at page 111, the writer goes on to say, 
 " With regard to the prophecies, the course of his reasoning 
 really amounts to this : that because there are difficulties and 
 obscurities attending some very few passages cited out of the 
 Old Testament in the New, as having a reference to the times 
 of the Grospel — and we cannot well, at this distance, see the 
 propriety of the application — therefore, the whole of the New 
 Testament is false, and the accounts given of our Saviour, his 
 excellent discourses, the miracles he performed, and the illus- 
 trious attestations given to him from heaven are of no force at 
 all, and all the arguments drawn from thence are ineffectual 
 and vain. It is in the same strain of reasoning that he con- 
 cludes that, because four or five prophecies, for he produces no 
 more, cited in the New Testament from the Old, seem not to
 
 — 120 — 
 
 relate to tlie Gospel times in a literal, but in a secondary and 
 typical — i.e., as lie explains it, an allegorical sense — therefbre, 
 none of tlic Old Testament prophecies can be applied directly 
 and literally at all, or have any relation to our Saviour and 
 the Gospel dispensation." Therefore, the very main argument 
 Avhich tiiose avowed freethinkers adopted, namely, that there 
 were no prophecies in the Old Testament which could be made 
 to apply to the New, is the very argument which pervades 
 the whole of Dr. Williams\s reasoning upon that subject. He 
 goes on, at page 120: "The author of the Grounds,'''' &c. 
 (which was another work of Collins) thought fit, in 1727, to 
 publish a second book, which was to pass for a defence of his 
 first, in answer to his several adversaries, and particularly to 
 the Bishop of Litchfield. It was entitled The scheme of Literal 
 Propheoj covsiflered. In this book he very slightly passeth 
 over the chief things he ought to have proved, and on wdiich 
 in his former book he had laid the greatest stress. Instead of 
 confirming what he had so positively asserted before, that the 
 Prophecies of the Old Testament were the only proof on 
 which Christianity is founded, he only shows that they are 
 part of the proof insisted on by our Saviour and his Apostles, 
 and most disingenuously supposes that his adversaries would 
 not allow them to be any proofs at all."" Then, my lord, in 
 page 121, he goes on to say, "He has nothing now to prove 
 that the Old Testament is the only canon of Christians, or 
 that the allegorical sense is the only sense of prophecies 
 intended by our Saviour and his Apostles." Then, at page 
 122: " But there is no part of the literal scheme, &c., which 
 the author has so much laboured, as that where he hath 
 collected together all that he could meet with against the 
 antiquity and authority of the Book of Daniel and the pro- 
 phecies contained there." This occasioned a second answer 
 from the learned bishop, intitled, A Vindication of the De- 
 fence of Christianity, from the Prophecies of the Old Testament, 
 published in J 728 ; in which he hath largely and very solidly- 
 vindicated the antiquity and authority of the Book of Daniel, 
 and the application of the prophecies there contained. " That 
 was the part upon which he had most laboured. He had 
 collected together all he could meet with against the antiquity 
 and authority of the Book of Daniel, and the prophecies 
 contained therein." The next writer whom I would introduce 
 to the Court's attention is a gentleman of the name of Woolston, 
 and he was a writer who followed closely upon the heels of 
 Collins, and he argued also that Christianity was founded 
 upon the Old Testament prophecies, taken not in a literal but
 
 — 121 — 
 
 an allegorical sense, in a false sense contrary to the original 
 intention of the prophets themselves. And Leland says, at 
 page 127 : " In opposition to him it was clearly shown that 
 many of the Old Testament Prophecies are justly applied to 
 our Saviour in their proper and literal sense. Besides which, 
 it was urged that there were other solid proofs of Christianity, 
 particularly that our Saviour's miracles and His resurrection 
 from the dead were illustrious attestations given to Him from 
 heaven, and evident proofs of His Divine mission. And now, 
 under pretence of acting the part of a moderator in this 
 controversy, a new antagonist arose, Mr. Woolston, who 
 endeavoured to allegorize away the miracles of our Saviour, as 
 Mr. Collins had done the prophecies." And, at page 128, he 
 observes of this man : " There are two ways by which he 
 endeavours to answer the design he hath in view. The one is 
 by showing that the literal sense of our Saviour's miracles 
 is denied by the most ancient and venerable writers of the 
 Cliristian Church ; the other is by showing the absurdity of 
 the accounts given in the Gospels taken in the literal sense. 
 ^\^ith regard to the first of these he hath, with great pomp, 
 produced many testimonies of the Fathers, for whom he 
 professeth the profoundest veneration ; and, by a strange 
 disingenuity, endeavoureth to represent them as absolutely 
 denying the facts themselves related in the Gospel," He 
 chiefly confined himself to a denial of the miracles, and he 
 was answered by Zachary Pearse, Bishop of Bangor, and by 
 Dr. Smallbrook, the Bishop of St. David's, in whose work, 
 called A Vindication of our Saviour s Miracles^ Woolston's 
 discourses on them are particularly examined. Then, my lord, 
 there was a Dr. Tindal, who published several works. I have 
 not the works themselves, but only an abridgment of them 
 here ; but he wrote An account of Chridianity as old as the 
 Creation, and he particularly set liimself to expose the reve- 
 lation contained in the Old and New Testament. He pursued 
 the plan of decrying the prophecies and of attacking the 
 miracles, showing that the prophecies must be literally inter- 
 preted, and attacking the miracles. And then there was 
 Morgan, of whom Leland says this, at page 180: "By a 
 prevarication and a disingenuity which is not easily paralleled, 
 except among some of those that have appeared on the same 
 side under all these fair pretences and disguises, he hath 
 covered as determined a malice against the honour and au- 
 thority of the Christian revelation as any of those that 
 have written before him. It is not easy to form a distinct 
 notion of what he understandeth by that revelation, the useful-
 
 — 122 — 
 
 ncss of which ho would bethought to acknowledge. He granteth 
 tliat God may, if He thinks fit, communicate His Will by 
 immediate inspiration, or supernatural illumination, yea, and 
 that what ho thus communicates may come with evidence 
 0(|ual to a mathematical demonstration. Yet he plainly inti- 
 mates that it can never be proved that God hath ever thus 
 comnumicated his will, and treats such inspiration as 
 the invention of our spiritual scholastics or systematical 
 divines. 13y several passages of his book, especially if com- 
 pared with what he saith in his second volume, which he 
 published in defence of it, it appeareth that by revelation he 
 undorstandeth any discovery of truth, in what way soever a 
 man comes by it, even though it be by the strength and 
 superiority of his own natural faculties. So that, all that 
 have discovered rational or moral truth, by their own study 
 and application in the use of their natural faculties, may be 
 said according to this account of it to have had the light of 
 revelation." He was the precursor of that great discovery 
 that inspiration was that influence which a man's natural 
 focultics receive, and he was the precursor of that great dis- 
 covery which places the prophets on the same footing as 
 Luther. At page 182, Leland says, " The great principle he 
 hath laid down, and which runs through the whole book, is 
 that there is but one certain and infallible mark or criterion of 
 Divine truth" (this is the great discovery of the verifying 
 faculty), " or of any doctrine or law as coming from God, and 
 that is the moral truth, reason, or fitness of the thing itself, 
 when it comes to be fairly proposed to and considered by the 
 mind or understanding. He frequently declareth that we are 
 not to receive anj^thing as true in religion upon any authority 
 whatsoever, or upon any other foundation than its own intrinsic 
 evidence or moral fitness. And this he explaineth to be its 
 conducibleness to our happiness, as appearing to our reason, 
 independently of all authority. So that after all, his fair 
 pretences about the benefit of revelations, we are not to receive 
 anything upon the authority of revelation at all — supposing 
 any persons to have been extraordinarily sent of God to make 
 a discovery of His Will concerning truth or duty, whatevei' 
 credentials they produce to prove their Divine mission, we are 
 not to receive anything upon that authority, no more than if 
 they were not thus extraordinarily sent of God. The doctrines 
 and laws they deliver as from God, in what way soever they 
 are attested and confirmed, are really and entirely on the same 
 footing with the opinion of philosophers or moralists, who do 
 do not pretend to be extraordinarily sent of God at all, i.e..
 
 — 123 — 
 
 we are to believe the doctrines they teach, if upon examining 
 them we find them to be true, by reasons drawn from the 
 nature of things ; and we are to submit to their precepts and 
 directions, if upon considering them, we are satisfied that tliey 
 tend to our own advantage and happines ; but their authority, 
 abstractly from the reason of the thing, must have no weight 
 to determine us. Thus the proper use and advantage of reve- 
 lation, which is to assure us by a Divine testimony of the 
 truth of things, which either we could not have known at all, 
 or not so certainly and clearly, by our own unassisted reason, 
 and with regard to our practice to direct us to our duty, and 
 bind it upon us by express precepts, confirmed by a Divine 
 authority, is entirely set aside by this author. Accordingly, 
 he will not allow either miracles or prophecy to be any proof 
 of Divine revelation, or any reason at all for our believing any 
 doctrines, or submitting to any laws which have this attesta- 
 tion given to them. This being the true state of the case 
 according to him, that nothing is to be received upon the 
 authority of revelation, it is to no great purpose to inquire 
 how this revelation is communicated to us. Then he says, at 
 page 185, " He, as well as that author," that is Tindal, " is 
 for discarding all authority, even a divine one in matters of 
 religion, and represents the receiving anything purely upon 
 such authority as a renouncing our reason. According to 
 him, the only way any man, even of the meanest capacity, can 
 have to be fully assui-ed of the truth of any doctrine in reli- 
 gion, is by the reason of the thing, or its own intrinsic 
 evidence, independent of all authority or testimony." At page 
 186, he says, " As to the revelation contained in the Holy 
 Scriptures, he expressly and avowedly rejecteth the Old Tes- 
 tament, and openly declareth that he will have nothing to do 
 with it in his religion. He representeth the Law of Moses as 
 having neither truth nor goodness in it, and as a wretched 
 scheme of superstition, blindness, and slavery contrary to all 
 reason and common sense, set up under the specious popular 
 pretence of a Divine instruction and revelation from God. 
 " And he endeavours to prove that this was the sentiment of 
 St. Paul. Among other heavy charges which he hath 
 advanced against that law, one is, that it encouraged human 
 sacrifices, as the highest act of religion and devotion, when 
 offered not to idols, but to God ; and he takes occasion to 
 consider the case of Abraham's being commanded to ofier up 
 Isaac, which he represents as absolutely unhinging and dis- 
 solving the whole law of nature. He then goes on to consider 
 the spirit of prophecy. " As to the New Testament, though
 
 — 124 — 
 
 lie frequently affectcth to speak with great veneration of Jesus 
 Christ, yet he insinuateth very base and unworthy reflections 
 upon his person and character. That he pretended to bo the 
 Messiah foretold by the prophets, though he very well know 
 that those prophets had only spoken of a temporal Jewish 
 prince, who was to arise and reigii in Judea, and that accord- 
 iu'dy lie suffered Himself to be carried about by the mob as 
 their Messiah, for a twelvemonth together ; and did not 
 renounce that character till His death, when He absolutely- 
 disclaimed His being the Messiah foretold in the prophetical 
 writings, and died upon that renunciation. As to the apostles, 
 the first authorized teachers and publishers of the religion of 
 Jesus, he affirms that they themselves never so much as pre- 
 tended to be under the unerring guidance and " inspiration of 
 the Holy Ghost." Every one of those points will be found in 
 the essay before us, the rejecting of the prophecies of the Old 
 Testament, the attack upon the oft'ering by Abraham of Isaac, 
 the putting forward of the verifying faculty to judge of reve- 
 lation, and the attack upon the Book of Daniel. And he says, 
 at page 191, "He frequently inveighs against all historical 
 faith, and books of historical religion, as he calls the Holy- 
 Scriptures, as of no use or importance at all, as if the belief 
 of the important facts recordecl in the Gospel, relating to our 
 Lord Jesus Christ, had nothing to do with the faith of a 
 Christian." 
 
 There -was another writer who came later into the field, 
 Chubb, and Chubb held a good many of those opinions, and, 
 at page 885, after speaking of Chubb, he says, "■ Nor only do 
 these gentlemen join in representing themselves as persons of 
 extraordinary penetration, and of the most upright intentions, 
 but they sometimes seem to claim a kind of infallibility. They 
 talk of having their understandings irradiated with the beams 
 of immutable eternal reason, so that they are sure not to run 
 into any errors of moment, and that they have an infallible 
 mark and criterion of Divine truth, in which men cannot be 
 mistaken. They -propose to direct men to the eternal and 
 invariable rule of right and wrong, as to an infallible guide, 
 and as the solid ground of peace and safety. They assure us 
 that deism on the religion they ■v\'ould recommend, is bright 
 as the heavenly light, and free from all ambiguities ; that it 
 makes all men happy that embrace it ; that it perfectly satis- 
 fies all doubts, and procures the troubled soul unshaken rest. 
 And as they take care to recommend themselves and their 
 own writings to the esteem and admiration of mankind, so 
 they give a very disadvantageous idea of those that stand up
 
 — 125 — 
 
 as advocates for revealed religion. They speak in a sneering, 
 contemptuous way of such books as Stillingfleet''s Origines 
 Sacrce^ Dr, Clark's Discourse^ and so on. They often speak 
 magnificently of keeping close to the eternal reason and nature 
 of things, and profess a high esteem for what they call the 
 uncorrupted religion of reason and nature, which is always 
 invariably the same." Leland, in his second volume, analysed 
 the whole of Lord Bolingbroke's Works, and particularly those 
 parts in which he said, " That it is profane and blasphemous 
 to ascribe the Jewish Scriptures to revelation or inspiration 
 from God, that the history contained there is false and incredible, 
 and the scheme of religion taught in these writings is absolutely 
 unworthy to God, and repugnant to his Divine perfection," 
 P. 157. He altogether, in fact, rejected all the historical argu- 
 ments by which the Old Testament would be supported, and 
 contended that Moses was as ignorant of the true system of 
 the universe as any of the people of his age. These arguments 
 will be found in great detail, set forth in Leland — I have made 
 these references for the purpose of showing the identity of the 
 main points insisted upon by these writers with those that 
 form the subject of the present review. 
 
 There are various other places in LelancCs Summary^ and 
 in the volume dedicated to the analysis of Lord Bolingbroke's 
 infidelity, which might also be cited. 
 
 As the arguments in the Essays were forestalled by the 
 Deists of the last century, it was not surprising, as I ventured 
 in opening to show, that this Review should be hailed with 
 great satisfaction by Deists of the present day, a fact which 
 is not, and indeed cannot be, denied. It is said it is very 
 hard that authors should be driven to conclusions which they 
 do not adopt. I cannot help thinking, however, that the 
 coincidence is very remarkable between the premises of Dr. 
 Williams, and of these Deistical and Infidel writers. There is 
 one more passage by which I might strengthen that position. 
 You will find at page 194, of Mr. Robins's work, this remark, 
 " He thought it worth while to reproduce "the argument of 
 Collins against the authority of the Book of Daniel. These 
 are the words of Collins, " That Daniel who was a person 
 carried captive in the Babylonish captivity, cannot be sup- 
 posed to be the author of this Book which abounds with 
 derivations from the Greek, which was a language unknown 
 to the Jews in, and for a long time after the captivity, and not 
 understood by them till the Grecian Empire prevailed, and 
 they became Hellenized." That is quoted from Collinses 
 Scheme of Literal Prophecy considered, chapter v., section 6,
 
 — 126 — 
 
 page 142 ; the writer says, " He oocs on to give all the other 
 arguments which Dr. Williams cites from Barou Bunsen, the 
 place in the canon, the late style of the Chaldee, the great 
 clearness of the statement, and the exact mention of the dates." 
 My lord, I have stated most of my authorities to your lord- 
 ship, upon this question of inspiration, and of the prophecies ; 
 and it becomes my duty to deal a little with some of the 
 authorities that have been cited on the other side upon the 
 same point. Now, with great respect for the erudition of my 
 learned friends, on an examination of the various authorities 
 which they have cited, I do not find many which I should bo 
 inclined to consider as even in appearance hostile to the 
 position which I am contending for as the position of the 
 Church of England. One there certainly was which would 
 require very careful attention, and which I was very much 
 surprised to hear cited, and I did not discover till after some 
 examination of the authority referred to, how it could be made 
 to appear to be in favour of Dr. Williams. That was the great 
 authority of Bishop Pearson. Your lordship will remember 
 that in the extract from Dr. Williams's Work, the expression 
 is this, after saying in substance in the 69tli page, that 
 remorseless criticism has disposed of all the predictive pas- 
 sages of the prophets, he says, " There is one perhaps in 
 Zechariah, and one in Isaiah, capable of being made directly 
 Messianic." And in another part of the Essay he uses the 
 same expression, " Messianic," Now, it is important that 
 your lordship should clearly see upon the common principles 
 of construction, in what sense the writer is using the word, 
 " Messianic," and I think it cannot be seriously contended 
 that he is using it in any other sense than as predictive of our 
 Saviour. It is important that that should be borne in mind, 
 and that would appear from the epithet to which it is put in 
 contradistinction at the bottom of page 66. " But in Grer- 
 many there has been a pathway streaming with light from 
 Eichhorn to Ewald, aided by the poetical penetration of 
 Herder, and the philological researches of Gesenius throughout 
 which the value of the moral element in prophecy has been 
 progressively raised, and that of the directly predictive 
 whether secular or Messianic." " Messianic " is here 
 opposed to " secular." I draw your lordship's attention to 
 that part, in consequence of an argument which I am going to 
 found upon it. I think it disposes altogether of the apparent 
 authority of Bishop Pearson, and that is the reason why I am 
 anxious that your lordship should understand my position. 
 My position is this, that when the writer, Dr. Williams, uses
 
 — 127 — 
 
 the word " Messianic "" from the contest, he must mean pre- 
 dictive of our Lord, and nothing else, that he cannot use it 
 in any confined and technical sense, but that he means predic- 
 tive of our Lord, and I say, that is proved by the opposition 
 in which it stands to the word " secular," " whether secular 
 or Messianic." Now, my learned friend, Dr. Dean, very 
 ingeniously suggested that in that he had done very little 
 more than Bishop Pearson had done, for he said, to my 
 astonishment, that Bishop Pearson held that there was only 
 one Messianic prophecy. Of course, my learned friend, must 
 have meant (because every page of the work would contradict 
 any other supposition) that Bishop Pearson said, there was 
 only one prophecy in which the word " Messiah," was used, 
 I say that because in the whole of the Greek work on the 
 exposition of the Creed there are passages without end in 
 which our Saviour is said to have been foretold in the Old 
 Testament. The work proceeds upon that scheme of showing 
 what was foretold, and showing that the prophecies applied 
 to our Saviour. It would be readino- the work at laroe to 
 prove that proposition, and I will therefore leave it upon my 
 assertion of the fact. How comes it that Bishop Pearson 
 really said that there was only one Messianic prophecy, if he 
 has said so, and in what sense has he said it ? In the second 
 article which is the article, " And in Jesus Christ," the 
 expressions occurs, to which my learned friend referred. I 
 do not know whether my learned friend quoted from the 
 folio edition, but there is a folio edition, and an octa,vo edition. 
 'I have found the expression in the folio edition, and I there- 
 fore quote from that ; it is very near the beginning of the 
 second article. The expression used in Pearson is this, 
 " Many are the prophecies which concern Him (that is Jesus 
 Christ), many of the promises which are made of Him, but 
 yet some of them very obscure ; others though plainer yet 
 have relation only to the person, not to the notion or the 
 word ' Messias.' Wherever He is spoken of as the Anointed, 
 it may well be first understood of some other person, except 
 in one place in Daniel, where Messiah is foretold to be cut 
 off; and yet even there the Greek translation hath not the 
 ' Messiah,' but the ' Unction."' It may, therefore, seem some- 
 thing strange how so universal an expectation of a Redeemer 
 under the name of the Messias, should be spread through the 
 Church of the Jews." Now, if my learned friend, meant any- 
 thing by his argument in support of Dr. Williams's views, 
 he meant to say this, that Dr. Williams had said, there were 
 only one or two prophecies of the Messiah, and that Bishop
 
 — 128 — 
 
 Pearson liad said, there was really only one. Therefore, 
 your lordsliip will see the importance of keeping in mind the 
 sense in which Dr. Williams is using the term " Messianic 
 prediction," and the sense in which, in this particular instance, 
 the author is using the word " Messiah." He is there speaking 
 of the word "Messiah," as "Anointed," Dr. Williams is 
 speaking of the predictions of our Saviour altogether, and 
 but for my respect for my learned friend, I should say it was 
 a mere quibble to put the two upon the same footing, it would 
 be asking your lordship to believe a proposition at which any 
 body really even cursorily acquainted with Pearson's works 
 would smile ; that Bishop Pearson said, that in the Old 
 Testament there were no predictions of our Lord, but one. 
 What Bishop Pearson says is this, "a particular use 
 of the word ' Messias ' or ' Anointed ' only occurs in 
 one." If you read the beginning of the chapter, it runs 
 in this way : "Having thus explained the proper name of 
 our Saviour Jesus, we come unto that title of his office usually 
 joined with his name, which is, therefore, the more diligently 
 to be examined, because the Jews, who always acknowledged 
 him to be Jesus, ever denied him to be Christ, and agreed 
 together that if any man dtd confess that he was Christ, he 
 should be put out of the Synagogue. For the full explication 
 of this title, it will be necessary, first, to deliver the significa- 
 tion of the word ; secondly, to show upon what ground the 
 Jews always expected a Christ, or Messias ; thirdly, to prove 
 that the Messias promised to the Jews is already come ; 
 fourthly, to demonstrate that our Jesus is that Messias ; and, 
 fifthly, to declare in what that unction by which Jesus is 
 Christ doth consist, and what are the proper effects thereof. 
 Which five particulars being clearly discussed, I canno-t see 
 what should be wanting for a perfect understanding that Jesus 
 is Christ. For the first we find in the Scriptures two several 
 names, Messias and Christ, but both of the same signification ; 
 as appeareth by the speech of the Woman of Samaria, ' I know 
 that Messias cometh which is called Christ ;' and more plainly 
 by what Andrew spake unto his brother Simon. We have 
 found the Messias, which is, being interpreted, the Christ ; 
 ' Messias " in the Hebrew tongue, ' Christ ' in the Greek, 
 ' Messias ' the language of Andrew and the Woman of Sa- 
 maria, who spake in Syriao ; ' Christ,' the interpretation of 
 St. John, who wrote his Gospel in the Greek, as the most 
 general language of those days, and the signification of them 
 both is ' the Anointed.' St. Paul, and the rest of the Apos- 
 tles, writing in that language, used the Greek name, which
 
 — 129 — 
 
 the Latins did retain, calling him constantly Christus, and we, 
 in English, have retained the same, as universally naming him 
 Ciirist. Nor is this yet the fnll interpretation of the word, 
 which is to be understood, not simply according to the action 
 only, but as it iuvolveth the design in the custom of anointing. 
 For, in the law, whatsoever was anointed was set apart, as 
 ordained to some special use or office." Then he goes on : — 
 " Hence the priest tliat is anointed signilieth, in the phrase of 
 Moses, the High Priest, because he was invested in that office 
 at and by his unction.*" Then comes the passage, '' When, 
 therefore, Jesus is called the Messias or Christ, and that long- 
 after the anointing oil had ceased, it signified no less than a 
 person set apart by God anointed with most sacred oil, 
 advanced to the highest office, of which all those employments 
 under the law, in the obtaining of which oil v/as used, were 
 but types and shadows ; and this may suffice for the significa- 
 tion of the word. That there was among the Jews an expec- 
 tation of such a Christ to come is most evident ; the Woman 
 of Samaria could speak with confidence, ' I know that Messias 
 Cometh. "" And the unbelieving Jews who will not acknow- 
 ledge that he is already come, expect him still. Thus we 
 find," and then he quotes a variety of texts, and then he says, 
 " Wheresoever he is spoken of as the anointed, it may well be 
 first understood of some other person ; except one place in 
 Daniel, where Messiah is foretold to be cut off, and yet even 
 there the Greek translation hath not the ' Messiah,'' but the 
 ' Unction.' "" Therefore, according to what Bishop Pearson 
 says, " two propositions are contained in that passage, the one 
 is that where he is spoken of as the ' Anointed,'' in the first 
 instance some other person may be understood.'*"' Now, I pray 
 your lordship to observe, that we have never contended, and 
 do not contend, that there may not be a double sense to pro- 
 phecy, but we say that Dr. Williams rejects altogether any 
 predictive sense at all. All that Jjishop Pearson says, is, 
 " It may well be first understood of some other person, except 
 one place in Daniel, where Messiah is foretold to be cut oft";'" 
 but he is speaking strictly of the Hebrew word " Messiah,"" 
 which he has there explained ; he is not speaking of the pre- 
 dictions of our Lord generally. I ask your lordship to con- 
 strue this Review upon the ordinary principle of construc- 
 tion, and see whether you can possibly arrive at that conclu- 
 sion, namely, that what Dr. Williams meant to say was, 
 " there are plenty of prophecies of our Lord and Saviour in the 
 Old Testament, but only one in which he is mentioned as the 
 Messiah f because if that be not the meaning of Dr. Williams, 
 
 K
 
 — 130 — 
 
 then Bishop Pearson ceases to liavo even the appearance of an 
 argument in his favour, so I dispose of that remarkable argument 
 of my learned friend ; I say remarkable, because, with the excep- 
 tion of IJishop Lowth and Hishop Marsh, there really were no 
 authorities cited wliich had the ajjpearanco of being in favour 
 of Dr. Williams's position. 1 lio])c I have made myself dis- 
 tinctly understood upon that point to the Court. I say, the 
 word " Messianic," in Dr. Wiliiams''s sense, means "predictive 
 of our Lord," as he has used it. 
 
 Now, ]3ishop [jowth has been very much cited as an autho- 
 rity u])on almost every part of the case. He is, it is said, an 
 authority for showing that you may criticise the Old Testa- 
 ment, so as to put a totally different sense upon it from that 
 which you have been accustomed to use, and that you may 
 show that the original version is at variance with the real 
 version, and that, in fact, you can establish by his authority 
 that the interpretation and the text of the Bible are open 
 questions with the Church of England to that extent, and 
 that by the use of him as an example, you may place the case 
 under the protection of the doctrines laid down in the Gorham 
 case, and in " Burder v. Heath." It becomes, therefore, of 
 considerable importance that Bishop Lowth's work should be 
 examined. Bishop Lowth was a most distinguished person, 
 and his authority must be of great weight as a corroborative 
 authority in any decision upon a matter of this description. 
 He was Bishop of London, and had been Bishop of Oxford, 
 and was a great Hebrew scholar ; and among his works he 
 published a new translation of Isaiah with a preliminary dis- 
 sertation, and notes critical, philosophical, and explanatory. 
 Before I enter upon an examination of him, to see whether 
 he will bear this load which is laid upon his shoulders, I wish 
 to make a general remark which applies to all this class of 
 authorities. It is one thing to criticise the Bible, and by 
 your criticism to elicit stronger evidence for the truth of the 
 historical facts and of the spiritual doctrines which it contains, 
 and it is a wholly different thing to criticise the Bible, and 
 deduce from that criticism a denial of the historical facts, and 
 of the doctrines which follow from those facts. In the former 
 case there can be no doubt whatever of the liberty of the 
 clergy of the Church of England, but, in the latter case, if (and 
 I am obliged to put a position hypothetically which I utterly 
 disbelieve) any sound criticism should arrive at this conclu- 
 sion, namely, I am obliged to say that the whole of these 
 facts (not a particular particle, which it is idle to talk about, 
 or a particular word which is insignificant in itself, or a parti-
 
 — 131 — 
 
 cular punctuation) are historically and really untrue ; if the 
 result of my criticism leads me to the conclusion, for instance, 
 that the whole story of Abraham is falsely stated, I moan 
 "falsely" in the sense of an incorrect translation ; if the result 
 of my criticism is that as to other portions of Holy Scripture, 
 upon the authority of which doctrines have been drawn, and 
 propositions have been settled and embodied in the formularies 
 of the Church ; if the facts related in those passages are falsely 
 related, and therefore the doctrines drawn from them must be 
 falsely stated, I certainly am not prepared to say that the 
 clergyman who holds this opinion can continue honestly to 
 subscribe to Articles which are built upon the foundation of 
 those passages all through. At all events there is a wide 
 distinction of principle between the two kinds of criticism, and 
 between the results at which they arrive. The one may bo 
 quite within the fair scope of a clergyman's liberty under the 
 Thirty-nine Articles, and the other is without it ; and I must 
 say again, at the risk of wearying your lordship, that subscrip- 
 tion to the Articles cannot, according to the law, be practically 
 and substantially evaded in any form, whether that form be, 
 as is alleged, a criticism and impartial examination, or whether 
 it be in any other shape. If the necessary result be that the 
 doctrines in the Articles cannot be true, then you cannot 
 honestly remain a subscriber to those Articles. 
 
 Now, apply that principle to Dr. Lowth\s translation of 
 Isaiah, and what is the very first thing you meet with ? 
 Why, that the effect of the whole translation is to strengthen 
 greatly the predictive element of that evangelical prophet. The 
 very famous translation of the 58rd of Isaiah, which is here 
 given, is always cited by all conmientators upon the Old 
 Testament as having greatly strengthened the prediction of 
 our Lord contained in that chapter, and so Dr. Lowth thought 
 himself, and it is because it is so contained in that chapter 
 that it is appointed by the Church to be read on Good Friday. 
 The great alteration in Dr. Lowth's translation was this : "By 
 an oppressive judgment he was taken off. And his manner of 
 life who would declare, for he was cut off from the land of the 
 living, for the transgression of my people he was smitten to 
 death;" and then follows this: "And his grave was appointed 
 with the wicked, but with the rich man was his tomb," which 
 brings the prophecy into exact accordance with the fact which 
 the translation in our Bible might appear to have confused. 
 The Court knows that the 58rd chapter of Isaiah in our 
 Bible is this : " And lie made his grave with the wicked and 
 with the rich in his death, because he had done no violence, 
 
 K 2
 
 — 132 — 
 
 neither was any deceit in liis mouth." And Jjishnp Lovvth's 
 scliohii'sliip led him to this : " And his grave was appointed 
 with the wicked, but with the rich man was his tomb," wliich, 
 as your lordship knows, brings it exactly in accordance with 
 the actual facts recorded in the Evangelists. That style of 
 criticism is a totally different one from what is called, to use 
 Dr. Williams's own expressicm, tlie " d<>strnctive style of criti- 
 cism," which destroys all the prophecies of the Old Testament, 
 and \vhich is surely a very different one from that which 
 establishes them. Now, what does Dr. Lowth say upon the 
 limits of interpretation, and upon the subject of inspiration ? 
 He says, on the 42nd page of his preliminary dissertation, "If 
 it be asked what then is the real condition of the present 
 Hebrew text, and of what sort, and in what number are the 
 mistakes which we must acknowledge to be found in it ? it is 
 answered that the condition of the Hebrew text is such as 
 from the nature of the thing, the antiquity of the writings 
 themselves, the want of due care or critical skill (in wliicli 
 latter, at least, the Jews have been exceedingly deficient) 
 might in all reason have been expected ; that the mistakes are 
 frequent, and of various kinds ; of letters, words, and sen- 
 tences, by variation, omission, transposition, such as often 
 injure the beauty and elegance, embarrass the construction, 
 alter or obscure the sense, and sometimes render it quite unin- 
 telligible. If it be objected that a concession so large as this 
 is tends to invalidate the authority of Scrijiture, that it gives 
 up in effect the certainty and authenticity of the doctrines con- 
 tained in it, and exposes our religion naked and defenceless to 
 the assaults of its enemies ; this, I tliink, is a vain and ground- 
 less apprehension. Casual errors may blemish parts, but do 
 not destroy or much alter the whole. If the Iliad or the 
 CEneid had come down to us with more errors in all the copies 
 than are to be found in the worst manuscript now extant of 
 either, without doubt many particular passages would have 
 lost much of their beauty ; in many the sense would have 
 been greatly injured, in some rendered wholly unintelligible ; 
 but the plan of the poem in the whole and in its parts, the 
 fable, the mythology, the machinery, the characters, the great 
 constituent parts would still have been visible and apparent 
 without having suffered any essential diminution of their 
 greatness. Of all the precious remains of antiquity, perhaps 
 Aristotle's Treatise on Poetry is come down to us as much 
 injured by time as any. As it has been greatly nmtilated in 
 the whole, some considerable members of it being lost ; so the 
 parts remaining have suffered in proportion, and many pas-
 
 — 138 — 
 
 sages are rendered very obscure, probably by the imperfection 
 and frequent mistakes of the copies now extant. Yet, not- 
 withstanding these disadvantages, this treatise, so nmch in- 
 jured by time, and so mutilated, still continues to be the great 
 code of criticism, the fundamental principles of which are 
 plainly deducible from it ; we still have recourse to it for the 
 rules and laws of epic and dramatic poetry, and the imperfec- 
 tion of the copy does not at all impeach the authority of the 
 legislator. Important and fundamental doctrines do not wholly 
 depend on single passages ; an universal liarmony runs through 
 the Holy Scriptures; the parts mutually support ^ch otlier, and 
 supply one another's deficiencies and obscurities. Superficial 
 damages and partial defects may greatly diminish the beauty 
 of the edifice, without injuring its strength, and bringing on 
 utter ruin and destructon." Then he says, " The copies of 
 the Holy Scriptures of the Old Testament being then subject, 
 like all other ancient writings, to mistakes arising from the 
 unskilfulness or inattention of transcribers, a plain matter-of- 
 flict, which cannot be denied, and needs not be palliated ; it is 
 to be considered Avhat remedy can be applied of this case ; how 
 such mistakes can be corrected upon certain or highly probable 
 grounds." Then he enters upon the translation which he has 
 given of this chapter of Isaiah, and then he says, at page 53, 
 " The sublime and spiritual uses to be made of this peculiarly 
 evangelical prophet" (I pray especial attention to these words), 
 " must, as I have observed, be all founded on a faithful repre- 
 sentation of the literal sense which his words contain." He 
 says, " To proceed further," and so on, would hardly be con- 
 sistent with his present engagements, and then the translation 
 follows after the preliminary dissertation, and he gives the 
 whole of the prophecy, his great object being, as he specifies 
 in more than one place in his preface, to show that the trans- 
 lation which he thinks better than the original in this case is 
 a translation which more strongly confirms the predictions of 
 our Lord, and makes Isaiah still more effectually an Evan- 
 gelical prophet than he would be in the ordinary version. 
 The work is dedicated to George the Third. Upon this trans- 
 lation, having this object in view, my learned friend builds 
 the argument that the interpretation and text of the Bible are 
 open questions with the Church of England. I believe this 
 passage, at page xxxvii., my learned friend quoted : "The method 
 of studying the Scriptures of the Old Testament has been 
 very defective hitherto in both these respects. Besides the 
 difficulties attending it arising from the nature of the thing 
 itself, the language in which it is written," and so forth. My
 
 — 134 — 
 
 learned friond read that passage, wiiich I need not read, about 
 the Masoretic punctuation, and at the end of that passage he 
 says, " Accordingly our public translations in the modern 
 tongues for the use of the Church among Protestants, and so 
 likewise, the modern Latin translations are, for the most part, 
 close copies of the Hebrew printed text, and are in reality only 
 versions at secondhand, translations of the Jews' interpretation 
 of the Old Testament. We do not deny the usefulness of this 
 interpretation, nor would we be thought to detract from its 
 merit by setting it in this light ; it is, upon the whole, prefer- 
 able to any one of the ancient versions — it has probably the 
 great advantage of having been formed upon a traditionary 
 explanation of the text, and of being generally agreeable to 
 that sense of Scripture which passed current, and was com- 
 monly received by the Jewish nation in ancient times, and it 
 has certainly been of great service to the moderns in leading 
 them into the knowledge of the Hebrew tongue." Then he 
 goes into that argument which I a little anticipated. That is 
 the passage, I believe, which my learned friend read. But 
 the intention of Bishop Lowth is perfectly clear. The inten- 
 tion of Bishop Lowth was to strengthen, and not to weaken 
 the Scriptures, to fortify, and not to invalidate the predictive 
 element they contained of our Saviour. And I do not hesi- 
 tate to say that if Bishop Lowth, or anybody else, had pub- 
 lished a work with a translation of the Bible which he had 
 recommended to be used, and which was at variance with the 
 doctrines contained in the Articles of the Church of England, 
 he would have been liable to ecclesiastical punishment for 
 putting forth such a work, if he retained his benefice in the 
 Church. It comes to the same thing — it is the same thing 
 over again — it does not signify by what process you do it. If 
 you destroy the Scripture upon which the doctrine is built, 
 you destroy the doctrine, and if you destroy the doctrine you 
 cannot continue honestly to subscribe to the article which sets 
 up that doctrine. However, I submit to your lordship, that 
 there is the widest possible difference in the principle upon 
 which the two proceed. 
 
 There was another authority also, which was insisted upon 
 very much in the same way, and the only other remarkable 
 one I think — Bishop Marsh's lectures. I have them here. 
 He wrote two works which are sometimes confused together ; 
 one a commentary on Mickaelis, and the other, A Course of 
 Lectures, containing a description and systematic arrangement 
 of the several branches of Dlvinitg, accompanied with an ac- 
 count both of the principal authors, and of the progress ichich
 
 — 135 — 
 
 has been made at different periods. Now, if I wanted to find a 
 strong' autlioi'ity for the doctrine for which I am contending-, I 
 shonld turn to Bishop Marsli, because I find in his twentieth 
 lecture, at the 24th page, he thus explains the principle of in- 
 terpretation, and it seems to me that nothing can be more at 
 variance with the principle upon which Dr. Williams pro- 
 ceeds than this. He says, " Let us apply, then, the princi- 
 ples of interpretation, as explained in a former lecture to the 
 two ditlerent cases of history and prophecy. When we inter- 
 pret the words of a sacred historian, and consider those words 
 as signs to the reader of what was thought by the author, we 
 may regard the historian himself as the author. But when 
 we interpret a prophecy, we must distinguish between the 
 author and the writer. For when the knowledge of the 
 writer is communicated to him by an immediate suggestion of 
 the Holy Spirit, we must consider the Holy Spirit as the 
 author of that knowledge which the prophet, as a writer, com- 
 municates to the reader. But then this knowledge might be 
 communicated to the prophet in two difierent ways, either of 
 which lay within the reach of almighty power. The understand- 
 ing of the prophet might be opened in a supernatural manner, 
 so as to give him an insight into future events ; while the record 
 of those events, or the mode of committing them to writing, 
 was left entirely to himself. In this case, though the pro- 
 phecy has the Holy Spirit for its author, yet the words of the 
 prophecy are the words of the prophet ; and if the prophet 
 was the author of the words, those words must be signs to 
 us of what was thought by the prophet. On the other hand, 
 the words also, as well as the things signified by the words, 
 might have been communicated to the prophet. In this case 
 he was the mere instrument of communication to the reader ; 
 and the Holy Spirit must then be regarded as the author as 
 well with respect to the words, as with respect to the things. 
 But whether the words were chosen by the prophet, or chosen 
 by the Holy Spirit, the principle on which they were chosen 
 must in either case have been the same. In either case the 
 choice of them must have depended on the connection which 
 the usage of the Hebrew language had established between 
 words, and the things signified b}' those words. If they had 
 not been so chosen, they could not have been signs to the 
 reader of what was thought by the author, whether we refer 
 them to the prophet or refer them to the Holy Spirit." Then 
 he goes on at length, and then he says at the bottom of the 
 26tli page, " But the prophecies relating to the Messiah are 
 of such importance, that they affect tlie very truth of our
 
 — 1 3() — 
 
 religion."" Now I claim from my learned friend's authority 
 that position. ''The prophecies relating to the Me;=is'uih are 
 of such importance that they affect the very truth of our 
 religion," and I should he glad to know, if that he a sound 
 position, how the denial of any predictive element in the Old 
 Testament by Dr. Williams, can be in accordance with that 
 teaching. Your lordship will remember that it is said that to 
 maintain there is no predictive element in the Old Testament, 
 is within the liberty of the Church of England's formularies, 
 and articles, and teaching. JJishop Marsh does not lielp it 
 when he says, " The prophecies relating to the Messiah are of 
 such importance that they affect the very truth of our re- 
 ligion," particularly as somebody (I suppose by the direction 
 of the editor) has put "truth of our religion"" in italics. 
 Then it goes on, " And in the next place, an inquiry iiito 
 those prophecies includes the consideration of almost every 
 thing which relates to prophecy in general. It includes the 
 question of primary senses and secondary senses of prophecy. 
 It includes also the question which has been so much agitated 
 under the name of accommodation." When we examine, there- 
 fore, the prophecies which relate to the Messiah, we examine 
 every question of real interest in the subject of prophecy at 
 large. Let us begin with an inquiry into that connection 
 which subsists between the truth of our religion and the pro- 
 phecies relating to the Messiah. It is evident from the 
 writings of the New Testament, that both our Saviour and his 
 Apostles appealed to the prophecies of the Old Testament, as 
 affording a principal proof of his divine mission."" That is 
 the position to be found in Dr. Marsh. Then he goes on 
 through those texts which I have already been obliged to read 
 to the Court, as founding that conclusion, that " The prophe- 
 cies relating to the Messiah are of such importance, that they 
 affect tlie very truth of our religion." Then in another part, 
 at page 32, he says, " From these repeated appeals to the 
 prophets of the Old Testament, it appears that their testi- 
 mony is represented in the New Testament as a principal 
 argument for the divine mission of Christ ;'"' and he then says, 
 " It is true that our Saviour appealed also to his miracles ;""' 
 and he then says, " To perform a miracle is to suspend or 
 counteract in that instance, the general laws of nature ; and 
 these are laws Avhich no one but the author of them has the 
 power of suspending or counteracting. When our Saviour, 
 therefore, appealed to his miracles, he appealed to them as a 
 proof, as a legitimate proof, that he was armed with divine 
 authority. And his miracles alone (independently of other
 
 — 137 — 
 
 ari>umeuts which estabhsh his own true divinity) woukl be 
 suificicnt to prove, as Nicodenius declared, that he was a 
 teaclier sent from God." Then follows this passa<>e, " Jiut 
 that connection which subsists between the covenant made 
 with the Jews through Moses, and the covenant made with all 
 mankind through Olirist, would be entirely lost were it not 
 for the intervention of the prophecies relating to the Messiah, 
 These prophecies form the link which connects the two cove- 
 nants. By these prophecies are we enabled to comprehend 
 the whole scheme of Divine Providence, and to understand in 
 what manner it was gradually unfolded for the redemption of 
 mankind." 
 
 Bishop Marsh may be right, or Dr. Williams may be right, 
 but they cannot both be right, for two opinions more utterly 
 at variance with each other it would be impossible to cite. 
 "That Jesus of Nazareth therefore was the promised Messiah, 
 is a fact which we must be able to establish, or we shall fail of 
 establishing that comprehensive scheme of Divine Providence, 
 which includes the two covenants in one general system.' 
 And we shall otherwise be unable to account for those re- 
 peated and solemn appeals to the Hebrew prophets on the 
 part both of Christ and his Apostles. Christ himself has 
 commanded us to search the Scriptures that vve may know 
 how they testify of him. We must be able, therefore, to find 
 what he has commanded us to seek, or the command will have 
 been given in vain. His Apostles have further declared that 
 he is the person of whom the prophets did write ; that he is 
 the person to whom the prophets gave witness ; that he is the 
 person whose preaching was made manifest by the prophets. 
 Unless, therefore, we could show in what manner the prophets 
 did testify of Christ, the declarations that they did so would 
 serve only to confound us ; and the argument for the truth of 
 our religion, which we now derive from prophecy, would 
 weaken instead of confirming the argument derived from 
 miracles. The Hebrew prophets, therefore, must have mani- 
 festly borne testimony to the coming of Christ. And this 
 testimony must have been so decisive as to admit of no ambi- 
 guity, no question, whether their predictions relate to the 
 person of Jesus Christ or not. There must be prophecies, 
 therefore, in the Old Testament, v/hich strictly, literally, and 
 directly predict the coming of our Saviour. There must be 
 something more than passages which may be accommodated, 
 as it is called," (that is by the German writer) " to his life 
 and character. Passages from classic authors are frequently
 
 — 138 — 
 
 accomniod.ated, or in other words, applied to a present event, 
 us descriptive of that event." 
 
 Dean of the Arches. — Bishop Marsh was a great German 
 schoLar. 
 
 Dr. Phillimore. — T know he was, my lord. Michaelis was 
 a German hook. 
 
 Dean of the Arches. — Ho commenced, you know, hy writing 
 his celchrated pamphlet on the Treaty of Pilnitz, for which 
 Mr. Pitt gave him a pension ; and when he became a hisliop, 
 he was so strict a High Churchman, that ho framed eighty- 
 seven queries, which he made every candidate for orders answer 
 before he received him. 
 
 Dr. Phillimore. — I am obliged to your lordship — I was not 
 in the least aware of that. Bishop Marsh proceeds : " There 
 must likewise be something more in the writings of the Hebrew 
 prophets than passages which predict the coming of Christ, in 
 a sense which is sometimes called remote, at other times 
 secondary, at other times mystical. A prophecy which relates 
 to our Saviour in a more remote or mystical sense, can hardly 
 come within that description of prophecy, by which the 
 preaching of Christ was made manifest. Nor is this the 
 only inconvenience to which we are thus exposed. For if we 
 adopt the notion, that the prophecies in general, which relate 
 to the Messiah, have two senses — a primary and a secondary 
 — we involve prophecy itself in such uncertainty, as to deprive 
 it of the character ascribed to it by St. Peter, who called it 
 the sure word of prophecy. I do not mean to assert that no 
 prophecy in the Old Testament has a secondary sense ; but I 
 mean to assert, and shall hereafter endeavour to prove, that 
 the system by which prophecies of the Old Testament are in 
 general supplied with a double meaning is untenable." So that 
 he goes a great deal further than even I should be inclined 
 to put it — he thinks that the exception is their having a double 
 meaning. Well, my lord, Dr. Williams stands in this position 
 that he denies that there is any double meaning at all ; he 
 denies that it is prophecy ; he says that it is history, and he 
 says that the Church of England allows him to say so. 
 
 Now, at page 43, Bishop Marsh goes on : " Let us now 
 consider the examples which strictly and literally relate to the 
 Messiah, though in some of them we shall find many single 
 words which are highly figurative. But I must previously 
 express my obligations on this subject to Bishop Chandler, 
 whom I have chosen for my guide in the selection of those 
 prophecies, which literally predict the coming of Christ. 
 Indeed, a better guide on this subject we cannot have. No
 
 — 139 — 
 
 man has more clearly perceived the importance of literal 
 prophecy relating to the Messiah." Then he comes to a 
 passage which is upon prophecy generally, and upon this 
 celebrated prophecy of Isaiah which is to be found in lecture 
 21, at page 55. " In the chapter of Isaiah, which has been 
 just quoted " (that is, the 58rd) " we have a plain and literal 
 description of our Saviour"'s sufterings, death, and burial ; 
 indeed, no less plain and literal than any historical narrative 
 could be, which was written after the events themselves had 
 taken place. And that this literal description is really literal 
 prophecy is a matter which cannot be questioned. The only 
 way to prove that it is history, and not prophecy, would be to 
 prove the whole chapter an interpolation in the Book of 
 Isaiah. Now, one should hardly suppose, that it was inter- 
 polated by the Jeics, to whom it is a serious obstacle. But if 
 it is an interpolation, the Jews alone could have been the 
 authors of it." He deals with that proposition, and disposes 
 of it altogether. Now, my lord, I do not care what Bishop 
 Marsh may have said in any other portion of his \vorks what- 
 ever upon the subject of interpretation, because yoM must take 
 an author's meaning qualified by the context of all his 
 writings, you are not to extract a passage by itself and say. 
 That is the meaning which the author must have meant, 
 when you find the whole scheme of his book opposed to it. 
 You are not to say that Bishop Pearson denied the predictions 
 of our Lord in the Old Testament, when his book is founded 
 upon the validity of those predictions, because he used the 
 word " Messianic" in a particular sense. You are not to say 
 that Bishop Marsh authorised an interpretation of the Bible 
 which would sweej) away the doctrines of the Articles, because 
 there is a particular passage in which he dwells upon the 
 advantage of liberty of criticism. And these remarks, my 
 lord, apply to every authority which has been cited ; nay, 
 they even apply to an authority which has been cited by my 
 learned friend, which I denied and still deny — to the authority 
 of Baxter — because I am sure that my learned friend was not 
 aware when he cited Baxter as an authority, citing one part 
 of his work, that in 1605, Baxter published a volume, entitled 
 Baxter's Confession of his Faith ; and that the first section 
 of that confession began in this way : " I do believe the Holy 
 Canonical Scriptures, and all things therein contained, to be 
 infallibly true as being the Word of God." This occurs at 
 page 10. Baxter would be a good deal surprised, supposing 
 surprise reaches people who have left this world ; I say 
 Baxter would be a good deal surprised to think that he was
 
 — 140 — 
 
 cited ill the Court of Arches as an autliority for the want of 
 inspiration in the canonical books, But that is the argument 
 on the other side. My lord, I am quite satisfied that when 
 you ajiply what Dr. Williams calls the spirit of " remorseless 
 criticism " and the " verifying faculty," to all the authorities 
 which are laid before you, the conclusion which I am satisfied 
 your lordship will arrive at is, that all the attempts to justify 
 Dr. Williams, by bringing him under the shelter of the 
 writings of divines, is obtained by taking on isolated passages 
 or detached expressions from their works, and neglecting 
 either the whole sehciue of the Avork, or the whole context of 
 the chapter. 
 
 There was another authority much cited, which I must say 
 a word upon — cited repeatedly by both my learned friends — 
 the autliority of Hey : a very strange writer, but certainly a 
 very able one. It is a curious thing, which I may mention in 
 passing, that upon looking the other day into Mackintosh''s 
 Ethical Philosophy, page 270, I found this note : " The dispo- 
 sition to compromise, and accommodation which is discoverable 
 in Paley, is carried to its utmost extent by Mr. Hey, a man 
 of inucli acuteness, and Professor of Divinity at Cambridge.'" 
 So that certainly it is a very favourable authority to cite ; but 
 I think, when he comes to be examined, he will not be found 
 to support the positions for which he is cited. 1 dare say my 
 learned friend and I have the same editions, so that I shall 
 have less trouble in finding my way. Mine is the edition of 
 ]822. 
 
 Dr. Deane. — My edition is 1841. 
 
 Dr. Phillimore. — I have here the very passage. Book i., 
 chapter xii., section 2, was the passage which my learned 
 friend cited, and it was upon the words, "genuine," 
 "authentic," "apocryphal,"" and "canonical." My learned 
 friend read it at great length, and it will not be necessary that 
 I should do more than see whether it sustains what he said. 
 In the third section the writer says, " The canonical books 
 are fi-equently called inspired books, it is therefore right to 
 endeavour to ascertain wherein inspiration consists. Yet here 
 with a view to our own particular method, it may possibly be 
 observed that this is not the place for entering into contro- 
 versies about inspiration, because all our first book professes 
 to be about theology as common to all sects of Christians," (a 
 pretty wide subject). " But there is scarce any point about 
 which there is not some difference amongst Christians ; and 
 this matter of inspiration does not seem to divide Christians 
 into sects. We will, therefore, content ourselves with men-
 
 — 141 — 
 
 tioning a few notions, as we would to heathens ; giving the 
 preference indeed to one, but leaving all Christians to profess 
 their own peculiar notions and systems." Therefore one 
 does not draw from that preamble any great hope of finding a 
 very distinct statement of the Church of English doctrine. 
 But, however, he goes on to deal with it, and I think it is 
 after a very long discussion indeed which it would be really 
 citing the whole book to go through. I think either here, or 
 in any one of the other parts of his work, he arrives at a 
 conclusion upon this very article. You see, my lord, from 
 that passage, that he is not explaining the sixth article of 
 religion, but it is the general and preliminary part of his 
 work, and he is going to deal afterwards with the Church of 
 England. But he does sa}^ at page 260, the passage I 
 think my learned friend relied upon at the bottom of Book i., 
 chapter xvii., section 19. " One thing which has occasioned 
 difficulty is, quotations of prophecies being introduced with 
 that it might be fulfilled ; but this is mere idiom, it means no 
 more than a propos does in French, or than our saying, I 
 dreamt of you last night ; now I meet you, my dream is out. 
 A continued and habitual reference to prophecy nn'ght generate 
 or give occasion to such a mode of expression." It shows, I 
 must say, very great levity in speaking at all in that way of a 
 passage which is to be found in the Scriptures, but he does not 
 in the least intend — (though my learned friend meant to 
 convey that impression to the Court, for the rest of his work 
 sufficiently confutes the notion) — I say he does not in the 
 least intend to imply that prophecy was not fulfilled, or that 
 there was not a predictive element in prophecy ; and if he 
 does not intend to say, that by it, it is merely quoting one 
 rather loose and careless expression of a writer who has 
 written four volumes upon the subject. The question is 
 whether in these four volumes upon the subject, and whether 
 in the part which he specially dedicates to that consideration 
 he has said anything to support Dr. Williams's views. 
 Therefore, I Vvill turn from that islolated passage, and will 
 turn from that isolated passage, and will see what he does say 
 upon the sixth article itself. I think it is pretty well seen in 
 Book iv., article vii., section 9, this is upon the point. 
 Observe, my lord, Hey, is cited to justify Dr. Williams in 
 maintaining that there is no predictive element in prophecy. 
 Now see how he subserves this purpose. " From explana- 
 tion we proceed to pi'oof ; and here our first proposition is, 
 properly, 'The Old Testament is not contrary to the New;' 
 but by what has been said in the explanation, this proposition
 
 — 142 — 
 
 is equivalent to tlie followini; ; ' Everlasting life is offered to 
 mankind by Ohrist,"" in the Old Testament. This proposition 
 might be proved by declarations of the Old Testament, as well 
 as by the tvpes of futurity there mentioned. But with regard 
 to tvpes, they were treated in the first book ; and in our reading 
 of JJishop Pearson on the Creed, we find no part of our 
 Saviour's hi^^tory, which is not shown to have been presignified 
 by them ; and with regard to declarations, promises, predic- 
 tions, perhaps we may as well take them into our proof of the 
 next proposition, concerning the actual expectation of the most 
 eminent Jews ; for though it is one thing to show that the 
 Old Testament does offer to mankind, through Christ, ever- 
 lasting life, and another, that the leading Jews or patriarchs 
 understood such offer, and founded expectations upon it ; yet, 
 as every proof of the offer must afford some argument for its 
 being acknowledged, we may as well incorporate the proofs of 
 the two propositions together.*" And then he goes on, showing 
 at great length throughout the article all the ])rophecies which 
 did relate to our Saviour. At very considerable length he 
 goes through the article setting forth all the prophecies of our 
 Lord, and at page 66, using the same argument which has 
 been always used, he says, " The authority of the New Tes- 
 tament must have the sfreatest weioht. Therefore, we will 
 select a few passages relating to Abraham, Moses, and David, 
 and then a few relating to the eminent persons of the Old 
 Dis[:ensation collectively. As to Abraham, John, viii., 56, 
 seems decisive ; whenever it was that he saw the day of Christ ; 
 but I must confess that Bishop Warburton''s account appears 
 to me not only ingenious but probable." Then he goes on 
 proving from the references to the prophecies of the Old 
 Testament in the New, that they must be Divine — and some- 
 where (I shall lay my hand upon it in a minute or two) he 
 gives an explanation of inspiration, which I remember when I 
 looked at it thinking it was one which I should be very con- 
 tent to abide by. 
 
 Then, my lord, there was Home's Introduction to the Scrip- 
 tures cited, to which I am not about to refer, for I do not in 
 any way quarrel with it ; and I observe from my notes, that 
 your lordship put to my learned friend the question, whether 
 Dr. Williams had ever denied the secondary sense, and my 
 learned friend, 1 think, made answer, " Never the secondary 
 sense in its fiilfilment," which was a very careful answer indeed, 
 because what Dr. Williams does say in substance is, that there 
 were fine moral qualities ascribed in Isaiah, to somebody 
 wholly different to our Lord, though it was impossible not to
 
 — les- 
 see that our Lord had those moral qualities. That is what 
 my learned friend calls "the secondary sense in its fulfil- 
 ment ;" but of course that is wholly and entirely a different 
 sense from that which Our Lord and His apostles themselves 
 used, when they referred specifically to the time, the place, 
 and the circumstances, according to the various passages I 
 liav^e read. Those references by them were in an entirely dif- 
 ferent sense altogether. My learned friend who spoke after 
 him very gallantly, and very ably contended at once, that it 
 was not necessary that he should maintain that there was a 
 predictive element in that sense, not only (and that the Court 
 will carefully distinguish) not only that the prophet should 
 not have been aware that the prophecy related to Our Lord, 
 for instance, which was quite another matter, but that the 
 Holy Spirit had not dictated to the prophet the prediction of 
 Our Lord, or of particular events. My lord, I have found 
 the passage in Hey, which my learned friend did cite, and I 
 liave no objection to adopt it. It is in the same page, book i., 
 chapter 12, section 8. " Some men have been of opinion that 
 every word of Scripture was inspired, and therefore that the 
 sacred writers were mere instruments. This Bishop War- 
 burton calls organic inspiration, and I suppose Dr. Priestly 
 means the same by plenary inspiration ; tliis seems the highest 
 degree of supposed inspiration, the Socinians seem to take the 
 lowest. Dr. Priestly says "" (that is the Socinian, I presume). 
 " That St. Paul knew nothing of the Fall of Man, but from 
 the writings of Moses ; and that his writings abound with 
 analogies and antithesis, on which no very serious stress is to 
 be laid. But such as seem to me the most judicious and 
 learned men, suppose that the sacred writers were informed 
 supernaturally as to the substance of the Christian scheme, 
 and were left to their own habits of speaking, as far as related 
 to the modes of expression." That is utterly and entirely at 
 variance with the doctrine of Dr. Williams, for there is nothing 
 at all supernatural according to his statements ; there is nothing 
 of the kind, and nothing partaking of it, any more than you 
 might say in a very high flown and strange manner of speech, 
 that there is something supernatural in Milton's poem. You 
 may do so. You may play upon words in that way, but you 
 are not speaking the language of orthodox divinity, or the 
 recognised language of the English Church when you so 
 speak. 
 
 Well, my lord, subject to the remarks which I made upon 
 the form of the article in which I stated that if it was sup- 
 posed that we had not sufficiently extracted passages, we
 
 — 144 — 
 
 would reform by oxtractiiis; more, subject to tliat i-emark that 
 wuuld dispose oVthc seventh Artick% because in dealing with 
 that, the whole queslion was involved, nij lord, of eanonicity 
 and of no inspiration, and of the predictive element in pro- 
 phecy, which I was obliged, as I am sure your lordship will 
 see, to tak(.' separate and apart from the technical consideration 
 of each article, because it would have been impossible other- 
 wise to have avoided a repetition of the argument upon each 
 successive article. My learned friends adopted that course, 
 and it was a very convenient one of taking certain general 
 principles which were involved in the question of the admis- 
 sil)ility of the Articles, and dealing with them apart from the 
 Articles themselves. Therefore, subject to these remarks upon 
 the form, 1 think that would be my answer as to the admissi- 
 bility of the seventh Article. I should say, therefore, that it 
 would stand as charging an ecclesiastical offence ; that, in other 
 words, the natural and plain construction of the passages which 
 we have selected when compared with the context, warrants 
 the conclusion which we have derived from them at page 4, 
 that the assertion that the Scrii)ture is an expression of 
 "devout reason," and "the written voice of the congregation," 
 and the other expressions therein recited do amount to a decla- 
 ration that the Scripture is not the Word of God, nor contain- 
 ing any special revelation of his Truth, or of his dealings 
 with mankind, nor of the rule of our faith ; and that it is 
 contrary to the sixth, seventh, and twentieth Articles, and that 
 it is contrary to that passage in the Nicene Creed, which says 
 that the Holy Ghost spake by tlie prophets, contrary to the 
 Book of Common Prayer; and to that passage of Holy Scrip- 
 ture appointed to be read concerning the admissibily of which 
 your lordship reserves your judgment. It might, I think, 
 have also been said, that it was not only contrary to the pas- 
 sage, " The Holy Ghost spake by the prophets," but also it 
 would be difficult to say how our Lord rose again according to 
 the Scriptures, upon the statements contained in Dr. Wil- 
 liams's essay. Therefore, my lord, the argument upon all 
 these great principles will extend itself of course, more or less 
 over the question of the admissibility of all the Articles ; but, 
 at present, my lord, I think I may pass on to the considera- 
 tion of the eighth Article. 
 
 Tiie eighth Article makes an extract from pages 65^ 66, and 
 G7, audit also includes a statement with regard to the prophetic 
 element.. It might therefore be said to have been dealt with 
 in the other article ; but some arguments h^ive been advanced 
 liere, which I wish to deal with before I pass on. The seventh
 
 — 145 — 
 
 and eighth might both be disposed of as coming under those 
 great heads which I have mentioned. My lord, there is a 
 remark to be made upon this eighth Article, in addition to 
 what T have said. In the extract in the 8th Article, the 
 writer says, and that may be urged perhaps in his favour. 
 " Bishop'Chandler is said to have thought twelve passages in 
 the Old Testament directly Messianic ; others restricted this 
 character to five. Paley ventures to quote only one." I pray 
 in aid of my argument as to the meaning which the writer 
 attaches to " Messianic," that passage: " ]3ishop Chandler is 
 said to have thought twelve passages in the Old Testament 
 directly Messianic." Bishop Chandler in these passages, is 
 referring generally to our Saviour, and not to the particular 
 sense which my learned friend referred to in Bishop Pearson, 
 and therefore, from the writer's own showing, he did not use 
 "Messianic" in the sense of referring to the Messiah alone, 
 but as generally referring to our Lord. It is clear from that 
 very passage, "Bishop Chandler is said to have thought 
 twelve passages in the Old Testament directly Messianic," 
 that there is no such limitation there. 
 
 Then, my lord, as to Paley, you will find that this is an 
 instance of very unfair statement. Dr. Williams says, 
 " Paley ventures to quote only one." At page 212, this is 
 what Paley says, it is in part ii., chapter 1, on prophecy, and 
 after giving the whole of the 53rd chapter of Isaiah, he fills 
 it up by these words, " There are other prophecies of the Old 
 Testament interpreted by Christians to relate to the Gospel 
 history, which are deserving both of great regard, and of a 
 very attentive consideration j but I content myself with stating 
 the above, as well because I think it the clearest and the 
 strongest of all, as because most of the rest, in order that 
 their value be represented with any tolerable degree of fidelity, 
 require a discussion unsuitable to the limits and nature of this 
 work." Paley dwells upon the great importance of that 
 chapter, the 53rd of Isaiah, as a prediction of our Lord, but 
 not more so, I think, than many other writers to whom 1 
 have referred your lordship ; they all consider it as the most 
 Evangelical chapter in the Evangelical prophet. 
 
 Your lordship will see that the statement of the reviewer, 
 with respect to the Book of Daniel, is that those portions of 
 the work supposed to be especially predictive, are a history of 
 past occurrences up to the reign of Antiochus Epiphanes. 
 Therefore, it is a clear proof that the predictive element (as it 
 is admitted indeed) is altogether excluded from his theory of 
 prophecy. I may say it is one of the clearest proofs. 
 
 L
 
 — 146 — 
 
 I now read these passages, to wliicli your lordship's attention 
 has been already drawn. " When so vast an induction on 
 the dostructive side has been gone through, it avails little that 
 sonio passages may bo doubtful ; one perhaps in Zechariah, 
 and one in Isaiah, capable of being made directly Messianic, 
 and a chapter possibly in Deuteronomy foreshadowing the final 
 fall of Jerusalem." That has been gone throui^h, and 1 think 
 that I should notice also, in passing (though it is difficult to 
 say whether it should not come in on tlio hearing of the cause, 
 rather than on the contention for the admission of the articles), 
 what is said about Jeremiah. I beg the Court to observe that 
 we contend, and have pleaded, in one of our latest articles that 
 the reviewer has adopted entirely the view of Bunsen in almost 
 all respects, as here, with respect to the person predicted by 
 Isaiah, being Jeremiah, and not our Lord. My lord, as to 
 this kind of fiction which IJunsen adopts, upon which I will 
 say a word in bidding farewell to this article, the notion of 
 two or three Isaiahs and two or three Jeremiahs, is exactly 
 characteristic of the mode of speculation which Dr. Williams 
 tiiinks ought to be adopted. First of all, they make a 
 chronology on speculation, then they make a history to suit 
 the chronology, and then they make a Bible to suit the 
 speculation ; and I dare say somebody hereafter will say that 
 there were two Bunsens — one a very sensible man who said 
 the prayers, which Dr. Williams seems to wonder that he 
 did say ; and another, a man who said and wrote the 
 extravagant nonsense which he did about the Old and New 
 Testament. 
 
 My lord, I come to the ninth article, which contains these 
 passages : "In distinguishing the man Daniel from our book 
 of Daniel, and in bringing the latter as low as the reign of 
 Epiphanes, our author only follows the admitted necessities of 
 the case. The truth seems that, starting like many a patriot 
 bard of our own, from a name traditionally sacred, the writer 
 used it with no deceptive intention, as a dramatic form, which 
 dignified his encouragement of his countrymen in their great 
 struggle against Antiochus. The original place of the book, 
 amongst the later Hagiography of the Jewish canon, and the 
 absence of any mention of it by the Son of Sirach, strikingly 
 confirm this view of its origin ; and, if some obscurity rests 
 upon details, the general conclusion, that the book contains no 
 predictions, except by analogy and type, can hardly be gainsaid. 
 But it may not the less, with some of the latest Psalms, have 
 nerved the men of Israel, when they turned to flight the 
 armies of the aliens ; and it suggests, in the godless invader
 
 — 147 — 
 
 no slight forecast of Caligula again invading the Temple with 
 like abomination, as well as whatever exalts itself against 
 faith and conscience to the end of the world. It is time for 
 divines " — these are words which clearly show the adoption of 
 the writer — " to recognise these things ; since, with their 
 opportunities of study, the current error is as discreditable to 
 them as for the well-meaning crowd, who are taught to identify 
 it with their creed, it is a matter of grave compassion " — that 
 is to say, to speak quite plainly, to believe that Daniel contains 
 a prediction of our Lord upon our Lord's authority, is a matter 
 of grave compassion, and a current error and discreditable. 
 " It provokes a smile on serious topics, to observe the zeal with 
 which our critic indicates the personality of Jonah, and doubts 
 the originality of his hymn." That irreverent language has 
 been read quite often enough to the Court, and I will not go 
 further into it. The same argument applies to that as applies 
 to the other passage. I would observe that the charge made 
 against Dr. Williams, which has been used, is not merely a 
 denial of the authorship simply and solely of those works 
 which he is charged with denying, but a denial of the author- 
 ship, coupled with a denial of something else also at the same 
 time. Now, in this case, it is not merely the authorship of 
 Jonah that is denied, but it is the personality of Jonah and 
 the truth of the historical facts connected with him. I have 
 shown the Court (anticipating this part of my argument) in 
 several citations which I made, how Jonah was personally 
 referred to by our Lord ; and I made that argument, which I 
 call the argument of the dilemma as to our Lord and the 
 Apostles being deceivers or deceived, which I need not again 
 repeat. I will now go on to the tenth article ; this passage 
 is taken from the 84th page of this book, or rather from the 
 8Srd, 84tli, and 85th pages, and the note numbered 3. The 
 passage selected is — " Our author then believes St, Paul, 
 because he understands him reasonably. Nor does his accept- 
 ance of Christ's redemption from evil bind him to repeat 
 traditional fictions about our canon, or to read its pages 
 with that dullness which turns symbol and poetry into ma- 
 terialism. On the side of history lies the strength of his 
 genius. His treatment of the New Testament is not very 
 unlike the acute criticism of De Wette, tempered by the 
 affectionateness of Neander." That, perhaps, might have 
 admitted of a good deal of explanation from the schools of 
 German theology. " He finds in the first three Gospels 
 divergent forms of the tradition — once oral and, perhaps, 
 catechetical, in the congregations of the Apostles. He thus 
 
 L 2
 
 — 148 — 
 
 explains the numerous traces characteristic of a traditional 
 narrative. lie docs not ascribe the quadruple division of 
 record to the four churches of Jerusalem, Rome, Antioch, and 
 Alexandria, on the same principle as liturcrical families are 
 traced ; but he requires time enough for some development, 
 and for the passing of some symbol into story. By making 
 the fourth Gospel the latest of all our genuine books, he 
 accounts for its style (so much more Greek than the Apoca- 
 lypse), and explains many passages." Then this passage 
 follows : " The verse, ' And no man hath ascended up to 
 Heaven but he that came down,' is intelligible, as a free 
 comment, near the end of the first century, but has no 
 moaning in our Lord's mouth at a time when the Ascension 
 had not been heard of." 
 
 Now, my lord, is a statement of that kind also within the 
 the liberty of a clergyman who has subscribed our Articles ? 
 I do pray your lordship's particular attention to that, because 
 I may be mistaken — my learned friend will correct me if I am. 
 I do not remember that any arguuieut whatever was addressed 
 to your lordship in defence of that position. 1 do not remem- 
 ber that either of the learned counsel for Dr. Williams 
 attempted to defend it. I nmst ask your lordship most 
 seriously to consider the consequences of admitting that such a 
 position as that is within the liberty of interpretation allowed 
 bv the Articles of the Church ; and I ask your lordship to 
 see how it confirms all that I have been addressing to you 
 upon the subject of interpretation ; how it shows that if that 
 new doctrine of interpretation ma}^ be extended, as it is pro- 
 posed to do, to get rid of distinct passages in the Old and the 
 New Testament, there is no security or safety whatever for 
 the people of this country that any portion of their Bible may 
 not be mutilated and expurgated of its most material doctrines 
 and its most comforting assurances, under the pretext that 
 among the various versions, Hebrew or Greek, somebody has 
 arrived at an interpretation which makes it intelligible as a 
 free comment, near the end of the first century, but it has no 
 meaning in our Lord's mouth. 
 
 Dr. Deane. — If my learned friend will allow me, I will 
 answer his question. It is no part of the indictment, and 
 therefore it was no part of our business to deal with it. 
 
 Dr. Phillimore.— I w'as quite correct in my statement — the 
 indictment is, that it is altogether an error — the error denied, 
 is with respect to the Revelation of St. John. 
 
 I did not put words into your mouth. If you say that you 
 had an argument, and you did not offer it, that puts an end to
 
 — 149 — 
 
 it : but I should have said, from your silence upon a very irrt^' 
 portant passage, which you knew was in complete accordance 
 with the whole of the argument against you, that you really 
 had no argument to use against it. If you tell me that you 
 have an argument, I can only say that I am sorry j'ou exer- 
 cised so extremely bad a discretion as not to have used it. I 
 mean most strongly to insist upon it, nor can I think for a 
 moment that anything so paltry could be listened to as this, 
 that when a passage is extracted and put into an article of this 
 offensive character, it could be supposed, owing to what is 
 called an omission in the charging part (that is to say, the 
 substance of the offence afterwards stated), that no answer was 
 to be given to that ; it must be perfectly obvious that that 
 might be altered by a stroke of the pen at any moment. It is 
 perfectly obvious that a more technical objection was never 
 opposed to a very serious charge. I am not aware that it is 
 not properly laid,* but assume for a moment that it was so ; 
 the passage which I have selected is this : " And no man hath 
 ascended up to Heaven but He that came down, is intelligible 
 as a free comment near the end of the first century, but has no 
 meaning in our Lord"'s mouth at a time when the Ascension 
 had not been heard of." We go on to charge Dr. Williams 
 that he did advisedly maintain that the portion of Holy Scrip- 
 ture, usually called the Revelation of St. John the Divine, the 
 Epistle usually called the Epistle to the Hebrews, and the 
 Epistle usually called the Epistle of St. Peter, are not respec- 
 tively parts of Holy Scripture whose authority is binding 
 upon the Church, and that he did therein advisedly maintain 
 such a doctrine. Very well, my lord, I will admit, for the 
 sake of that, we should have therefore to ask you to put in 
 that, " and you did also in that statement " the verse " And 
 no man hath ascended up to Heaven but He that came down," 
 is intelligible as a free comment near the end of the first cen- 
 tury ; but has no meaning in our Lord's mouth at a time 
 when the Ascension had not been heard of, deny the authen- 
 ticity of the Scripture in which that passage is contained, and 
 in which our Lord is made to say these words." Then it goes 
 on : — " So that the Apocalypse, if taken as a series of poetical 
 visions, which represent the outpourings of the vials of wrath 
 upon the city where the Lord was slain, ceases to be a riddle. 
 Its horizon answers to that of Jerusalem already threatened by 
 
 * In the later case of Fendal v. Williams, it was contended that the 
 decision of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council upon the ques- 
 tion of pleading was given upon Articles under the severe statute of 13 
 Elizabeth, c. 12, not upon articles like these under the general canon law.
 
 — 150 — 
 
 the logioiiH of Vespasian, and its language is partly adapted 
 fi'oin the older prophets, partly a repetition of our Lord's 
 warnings as described by the Evangelists, or as deepened into 
 wilder threatenings in the mouth of the later Jesus, the son of 
 Ananus. The Epistle to the Hebrews, so different in its 
 concc^ption of taith, and in its Alexandrine rhythm from the 
 doctrine of St. Paul's known Epistles, has its degree of dis- 
 crej>ance explained by ascribing it to some companion of the 
 Apostles ; and minute reasons are found for fixing it with 
 
 Erobability on Apollos. The second of the Petrine Epistles 
 aving alike external and internal evidence against its 
 genuineness, is necessarily surrendered as a whole : and our 
 critic's good faith in this respect is more certain than the 
 ingenuity with whicli he reconstructs a part of it. The 
 second chaj)ter may not improbably be a quotation ; but its 
 quoter, and the author of the rest of the Epistle, need not 
 therefore have been St. Peter." Well, my lord, the charging 
 part here is, "that the portion of Holy Scripture usually 
 called the Revelation of St. John the Divine, the Epistle 
 usually called the Epistle to the Hebrews, and the Epistle 
 usually called the Epistle of St. Peter, are not respectively 
 parts of Holy Scripture, whose authority is binding upon the 
 Church," and that that opinion was maintained by Dr. Wil- 
 liams, and is inconsistent with the sixth of the Articles. 
 
 Now, here comes in the note which I anticipated a little 
 time back. The Court will see the note at the bottom of 
 page 10. In my own judgment, the Epistle bears traces of 
 being post-apostolic. Upon that I wish to observe, that it is 
 not merely therefore a charge upon the question of the author- 
 ship of the Epistle to the Hebrews, but it is a direct state- 
 ment that the Epistle to the Hebrews was post-apostolic. 
 Now, of course, if the Epistle to the Hebrews was post-apostolic, 
 it could not, under any latitude of definition, come within the 
 canonical Scriptures. The whole argument as to the division 
 being made into canonical and uncanonical Scriptures, which 
 was gone into at great- length, would be at variance with it. 
 The whole principle on which the selection was made, would be at 
 variance with it. If it was written after apostolic times, no 
 book of this description is admitted in the catejjory of 
 canonical, and it would be upon the same footing as the Apo- 
 crypha ; and so, my lord, with regard to the selection of the 
 passage from the Revelation. A great deal has been said by 
 my learned friend upon the question of the date of St. John's 
 Gospel, whicli I think is not exactly in question here. The 
 point is the reference to the passage from the Revelation for
 
 — 151 — 
 
 the Epistle, and wliat St. John says of our Lord — that I do 
 not find to have been dealt with — "so the Apocalypse, if 
 taken as a series of poetical visions." Then, my lord, it is to 
 be considered and decided whether it is competent or not to a 
 clergyman to ascribe the Epistle to the Hebrews to a post- 
 apostolic period, and whether it is competent to him to deny 
 the second of the Petriue Epistles, and whether it is compe- 
 tent to him to deny its refierence to our Lord ; that would rest 
 upon the argument which has been already addressed to your 
 lordship, and which need not be repeated. If your lordship 
 is of opinion that that is consistent with unfeignedly believing 
 the canonical Scriptures, or course it is admissible ; but if it is 
 not consistent with an unfeigned belief in the canonical Scrip- 
 tures, of course it is inadmissible, and it is without the lati- 
 tude claimed. But of course we should ask if it be technically 
 necessary to have this passage from St. John put into the 
 charging part, and if the Articles were to be re-formed, we 
 should request to have that amongst the re-formations. 
 
 Now, my lord, we come to the eleventh article, and the 
 eleventh article relates to a passage taken from the 56th, 59th, 
 60th, and 61st pages of tlie book. " Our deluge takes its 
 place among geological phenomena, no longer a disturbance of 
 law from which science shinks, but a prolonged play of the 
 forces of fire and water, rendering the primeval regions of 
 North Asia uninhabitable." This includes a very serious 
 passage, which is this ; " Baron Bunsen notices the high 
 hand with which Jehovah led forth his people, the spoiling of 
 the Egyptians, and the lingering in the Peninsula, as signs, 
 even in the J3ible, of a struggle conducted by human means. 
 Thus, as the pestilence of the book of Kings becomes in Chro- 
 nicles the more visible angel, so the avenger who slew the first 
 born may have been the Bedouin host, akin nearly to Jethro." 
 
 Dean of the Arches. — Which article are you now reading ? 
 
 Dr. Phillimore. — I am reading the eleventh. 
 
 Dean of the Arches. — Is that the commencement of it \ 
 
 Dr. Phillimore. — No, my lord. I have read the other 
 portion ; it is at the top of page 11 ; it begins over leaf, my 
 lord ; the preceding part had related to the Deluge. Then 
 comes this part, " Thus as the pestilence of the book of Kings 
 becomes in Chronicles the more visible angel, so the avenger 
 who slew the first born, may have been the Bedouin host akin 
 nearly to Jethro, and more remotely to Israel ;" and then it 
 proceeds, " So in the passage of the Bed Sea, the description 
 may be interpi-eted with the latitude of poetry ; though as it 
 is not afiirmed that Pharaoh was drowned, it is no serious
 
 — lo2 — 
 
 objection that Eiivptian authorities continue the reign of Menep- 
 thali hiter. A greater ilifficulty is, tliat we find that three 
 centuries thus left us from the Exo(his to Solomon's Temple. 
 Yet loss stress will be laid upon this by whoever notices how 
 the numbers in the book of Judges proceed bj the eastern 
 round number of forty, what traces the whole book bears of 
 embodying history in its most popular form, and how natu- 
 rally St, Paul or St. Stephen would speak after received ac- 
 counts." An then there comes tliis passage, which is about 
 the most objectionable in the whole work. " When the fierce 
 ritual of Syria, with the awe of a divine voice, bade Abraham 
 slay his son, he did not reflect that he had no perfect theory 
 of the absolute, to justify him in departing from traditional 
 revelation, but trusted that the Father, whose voice from 
 Heaven he heard at heart, was better pleased with mercy 
 than with sacrifice, and his trust was his righteousness. Ita 
 seed was sown from heaven, but it grew in the soil of an 
 honest and good heart ; so in each case we trace principles of 
 reason and right to which our heart perpetually responds, and 
 our response to which is a truer sign of faith than such defer- 
 ence to a supposed external authority as Avould quench these 
 principles themselves " — your lordship remarks the expression 
 "to a supposed external authority as v/ould quench theso 
 principles themselves.'" And you remember what is said at 
 the close of the essay, about " the fiction of an external revela- 
 tion."" Well, my lord, we say that the substance of this 
 is, " that the statements of Holy Scripture as to historical 
 facts may be read and understood in a wholly figurative sense, 
 and in a non-natural sense, of the plain words and purport 
 thereof," or that he " did therein advisedly maintain or 
 affirm " such a doctrine. First of all, my lord, is that a 
 correct inference from those passages ? What do they do ? 
 They dispose of the Deluge as described in the Bible. " It is 
 no longer a disturbance of law from which science shrinks, but 
 a prolonged play of the forces of fire and water, rendering the 
 primeval regions of North Asia uninhabitable, and urging the' 
 nations to new abodes."" It disposes of the plain statement of 
 the Deluge ; it disposes of the great miracle of the slaying of 
 the first born ; it disposes altogether, not, perhaps, altogether, 
 but it disposes partially of the passage of the Red Sea, and it 
 disposes entirely of what I believe has hitherto been con- 
 sidered one of the most important passages in the Old Testa- 
 ment, namely, the offering up of Isaac. And of course it 
 would be very important indeed for your lordship to consider 
 here whether the lesson for the evenino- service of the first
 
 — 153 — 
 
 Sunday in Lent, can be admitted, and also whether the 22nd 
 chapter of the 1st book of Moses can be admitted. 
 
 My lord, with regard to all these asssertions, first of all, it 
 cannot be denied here that the reviewer identifies himself with 
 the author. And I say, are these statements consistent with 
 an unfeigned belief in the canonical Scriptures of the Old and 
 New Testament. If they are consistent with it, what amount 
 of this belief is inconsistent with it I I do not say that the 
 inevitable consequences of a proposition are always an infal- 
 lible proof of the intention of the propounder, but they afford 
 a very considerable argument in cases of this description, and 
 I should reall}^ be glad to know how it would be possible, if 
 the Court admits this doctrine, that these may be explained 
 away, for that is the plain meaning of it. I say I should 
 really be glad to know what other passages in Scripture might 
 not be explained away. 
 
 All that I have said with regard to the incorporation of the 
 Scriptures of the Old Testament in the New, the whole of 
 that argument applies again here. It applies in the most re- 
 markable way, as your lordship is aware, in the case of Abra- 
 ham and Isaac, and therefore if these are admissible passages, 
 this consequence would clearly follow, that a clergyman is not 
 restrained from dissolving into allegory, passages which have 
 been adapted and applied by our Lord or by his Apostles in the 
 New Testament, as historical facts of the most solemn and 
 real character. That would be one consequence which would 
 follow. The other consequence that would follow is that it 
 would be left entirely to each person's selection to say what 
 he considered to be plain, historical statement and what he 
 considered to be allegorical ; what was inspired, and what was 
 uninspired. What would the Bible be when each person had 
 exercised his discretion in this way I What remaining 
 security would there be that all the portions of the Bible 
 would not be got rid of? That is exactly v/hat has happened 
 in Germany. They had a subscription in Germany ; and 
 after trying a subscription to all Luther's works, and finding 
 that that was an impossible thing, they got a subscription to 
 this effect, " So far as they are consistent with the Scrip- 
 tures,"" and under those large words there have been profes- 
 sors of theology like Strauss, who has explained without diffi- 
 culty, or the least remorse, the whole Bible, all the facts of the 
 Bible, away, and have said that they were every one of them 
 myths and allegories. Well, my lord, the object of the thirty- 
 nine Articles, and of our formularies, as I understand them, 
 is to prevent clerks from so dealing with the Bible. The object
 
 — 154 — 
 
 of those fonnularies is to bind persons down to certain positions 
 or articles extracted froni the JJible. According to tiie argu- 
 ment of my learned friends, surely there should be some expla- 
 nation that at the time of ordination, when the authorised 
 version of the Bible is delivered to the deacon, and he is asked 
 whether ho unfeignedly believes it, it is competent for him to 
 say, " Yes, I unfeignedly believe all it contains, but I do not 
 believe it does contain what strictly speaking it does contain ; 
 I believe it contains certain allegories, but 1 do not believe it 
 contains a record of actual facts." My lord, I can only say 
 that it may be my obtuseness, but 1 am not able to see 
 where a line of demarcation sliould be drawn upon this point, 
 I mean as to the admission or retention of the historical 
 narratives in the Old Testament. I am utterly unable, I say, 
 to see where the line can be drawn, and I should think it a 
 very great hardship if I were a clergyman of the Church of 
 England, and it was judicially pronounced that Dr. Williams 
 might substitute a totally diiierent version (for I shall show 
 you that it is a totally different version of the ottering up of 
 Isaac fi'om that which is given in the plain language of the 
 Bible), and I might not offer a totally different version of any 
 other passage in the Bible which did not happen to agree with 
 my speculations. 
 
 Dean of the Arches. — Are you going to a new head, Dr. 
 Phillimore ? 
 
 Dr. Phillimore. — Yes, my lord ; and I must, I am afraid, 
 take some little time upon it. 
 
 Dean of the Arches. — Then we had better adjourn. 
 
 Dr. Phillimore. — Eeturning to where I left off yesterday, 1 
 will supply one omitted citation. That citation is from Boone's 
 Sermons on the Theory of Belief a most distinguished and 
 accomplished writer, now, I am sorry to say, no more. 
 
 The title is, 0^^ Developement of Religion. " Where is the 
 practical difference, whether we contend that all is God, or 
 that nothing is God ? Let me illustrate the point by the case 
 of inspiration. There is no such thing as inspiration, says 
 one class of objectors ; inspiration is everywhere, and in all 
 things, says another class. The Greek dramas are as much 
 inspired as the Book of Job, the odes of Pindar are as much 
 inspired as the psalms of David, Homer and Shakespeare are 
 as much inspired as St. Paul. You will observe that I am 
 not here asking what inspiration is, or discussing any theories 
 concerning it. But who can doubt that the true differential 
 idea of Scriptural inspiration is as completely destroyed by
 
 — 155 — 
 
 the latter of these averments as by the former ? Still more 
 certainly the true distinctive idea of God is destroyed by Pan- 
 theism no less than by Atheism ; and they amount, in fact, to 
 the same thing." 
 
 My lord, upon the eleventh Article it will not be necessary 
 to read the selected passages again. The first objection is to 
 the account of the Deluge which is given by Dr. Williams, and 
 we say it is at variance with the teaching of the Church. It 
 is only necessary to refer your lordship on this point to two 
 chapters in Genesis, one, chap, vi., verse 17 : 
 
 " And behold, I even I do bring a flood of waters upon the 
 earth, to destroy all flesh wherein is the breath of life, from 
 under heaven, and everything that is in the earth shall die." 
 
 The other is chap, ix., beginning at verse 11 : " And I will 
 establish my covenant with you ; neither shall all flesh be cut 
 ofi" any more by the waters of a flood ; neither shall there any 
 more be a flood to destroy the earth. 
 
 " And God said, This is the token of the covenant which I 
 make between me and you, and every living creature that is 
 with you, for perpetual generations. 
 
 " I do set my bow in the cloud, and it shall be for a token 
 of a covenant between me and the earth. 
 
 " And it shall come to pass, when I bring a cloud over the 
 earth, that the bow shall be seen in the cloud. 
 
 " And I will remember my covenant which is between me 
 and you and every living creature of all flesh, and the waters 
 shall no more become a flood to destroy all flesh. 
 
 " And the bow shall be in the cloud ; and I will look upon 
 it, that I may remember the everlasting covenant between 
 God and every living creature of all flesh that is upon the 
 earth." 
 
 My lord, this is a plain matter of construction. If Dr. 
 Williams adopts this opinion, "Our deluge takes its place 
 among geological phenomena, no longer a disturbance of law 
 from which science shrinks, but a prolonged play of the forces 
 of fire and water, rendering the primeval regions of North 
 Asia uninhabitable, and urging the nations to new abodes,'" 
 he distinctly denies that the miraculous record that I have 
 read to your lordship is true. 
 
 I come to the next question, viz., whether it is competent 
 to Dr. Williams to say, with regard to the Exodus : " Thus, 
 as the pestilence of the Book of Kings becomes in Chronicles 
 the more visible angel, so the Avenger who slew the firstborn 
 may have been the Bedouin host, akin nearly to Jethro, and 
 more remotely to Israel."
 
 — 156 — 
 
 In the Hr-st place, I must say it is one of the many instances 
 in which the extreme carelessness and negligence of Dr. Wil- 
 liams is to be traced. Just as he was quite wrong about 
 Bishop Chandler, and quite wrong about Paley, so he is quite 
 wrung in his citations from Scripture. If the Court compare 
 the two passages cited, it will find there is not that difference 
 which Dr. Williams (whoso learning is to be a model for the 
 CJiurch of England) supposes. In the second Book of Kings, 
 chap, xix., verse 35, there is the passage to which Dr. Williams 
 refers. It is thus stated : "And it came to pass that night, 
 that the angel of the Lord went out and smote in the camp of 
 the Assyrians an hundred fourscore and five thousand: and 
 when they arose early in the morning, behold, they were all 
 dead corpses." Dr. Williams says, " Thus as the pestilence 
 of the Book of Kings becomes in Chronicles the more visible 
 augol." Why, the " visible angel," is distinctly stated in 
 the passage I have read to your lordship. " It came to pass 
 that night the angel of the lord went out." The passage in 
 the second Book of Chronicles will be found in chapter xxxii., 
 verse 21, " And the lord sent an angel, which cut off" all the 
 mighty men of valour, and the leaders and captains in the 
 camp of the king of Assyria. So he returned with shame of 
 face to his own land." The angel of the Lord is equally 
 mentioned in both passages. 
 
 That is only another proof the carelessness of the writer. 
 Then he goes on, " So the avenger who slew the first-born 
 may have been the Bedouin host, akin nearly to Jetliro, and 
 more remotely to Israel." Now, the passage in Exodus is 
 chapter xii., verse 23 ; and what says the Book of Exodus ? 
 " For the Lord will pass through to smite the Egyptians ; 
 and when he seetli the blood upon the lintel, and on the two 
 side posts, the Lord will pass over the door, and will not 
 suffer the destroyer to come in unto your house to smite you. 
 And ye shall observe this thing for an ordinance to thee and 
 to thy sons for ever, and it shall come to pass when ye be 
 come to the land which the Lord will give you, according as 
 he hath promised, that ye shall keep this service. And it 
 shall come to pass when your children shall say unto you, 
 what mean ye by this service ? that ye shall say, It is the 
 sacrifice of the Lord's passover who passed over the houses of 
 the children of Israel in Egypt when he smote the Egyptians, 
 and delivered our houses. And the people bowed the head 
 and worshipped. And the children of Israel went away and 
 did as the Lord had commanded Moses and Aaron, so did 
 they. And it came to pass, that at midnight the Lord smote
 
 — 157 — 
 
 all the first born in the land of Egypt, from the first born o^ 
 Phai'aoh that sat on his throne, unto the first born of the 
 captive that was in the dungeon ; and all the first born of 
 cattle." 
 
 It is said, that this miracle might have been effected by 
 " the Bedouin host ;"" why " the Bedouin host " were to have 
 picked out the " first born " is of course a matter of criticism ; 
 but it is suggested that the Lord may have effected this 
 miracle through " the Bedouin host." All I can say, is that 
 Holy Writ says no such thing ; Holy Writ says quite dif- 
 ferently ; Holy Writ gives a distinct account of one of the most 
 remarkable miracles in the Old Testament : that remarkable 
 miracle in the Old Testament is referred to in the New Testa- 
 ment. I deny as a mere question of construction, that it can 
 be competent to a clergyman of the Church of England to say, 
 that when Holy Writ says, " the Lord made all the first born 
 in the land of Egypt," it means " the Bedouin host." 
 
 My lord, I say on the same principle on which you might 
 read, "the Bedouin host" here, you might explain and alter 
 any passage in Scripture. I know the answer that is given. 
 The answer my friend gave by anticipation in his opening 
 speech was, " you reconcile people to the Bible in this way ; 
 people cannot understand these things without these historical 
 illustrations; if you alter the Scriptures you reconcile people 
 to them." It reminds me of a reply, which I have somewhere 
 read, that Armand made to Boileau on a similar occasion. 
 Boileau proposed to alter the Bible with the same object, and 
 Armand made this remarkable reply to him, " Mon ami, vous 
 gagnerez deux ou trois impies et vousperdrez je ne sais 
 combien d'honnetes gens." " You may, perhaps, convert two 
 or three infidels, you will certainly destroy the faith of innu- 
 merable simple-minded believers." 
 
 In the same way. Dr. Williams treats the miracle of the 
 Red Sea. I do not exactly understand why it is said 
 Pharaoh was not drowned. That is a matter of construction. 
 I should have read the psalm in a different way, but Dr. 
 Williams says, the description is to be interpreted with the 
 latitude of poetry. He does not say, " it pleased God on that 
 occasion to make use of natural means to effect a miracle," i.e. 
 he made use of a particular wind which blew in that direction, 
 to raise the waves to such a height that the Israelites passed 
 through, which was an ingenious theory suggested (though 
 not in those terms) by a great divine. It would have been 
 quite a different thing if Dr. Williams had stated in plain and 
 intelligible language, " it pleased God to work a miracle, but
 
 — 158 — 
 
 to work it bv human moans." But no such statement as that 
 is to be found from one end of the article to the other. It is 
 simply an ari^ument made use of by his advocate to cover the 
 plain contradiction between Dr. Williams and the Bible. 
 
 Mv lord, 1 pass on to that which is the most important of 
 all, the passage contained in the fourth extract about the 
 oft'cring 01 Isaac. I nmst read to your lordship very shortly 
 what the Bible says, because it can only be done by comparing 
 the two together. " And it came to pass after these things, 
 that God did tempt Abraham, and said unto him, Abraham; 
 and he said, Beheld, here I am ; and he said, Take now thy 
 son, thine only son Isaac, whom thou lovest, and get thee into 
 the land of Moriah ; and offer him there for a burnt offering 
 upon one of the mountains which I will tell thee of. 
 
 "And Abraham rose up early in the morning, and saddled 
 his ass, and took two of his young men with him, and Issac 
 his son, and clave the wood for the burnt offering, and rose up, 
 and went unto the place of which God had told him. 
 
 " Then on the third day Abraham lifted up his eyes, and 
 saw the place afar off. 
 
 " And Abraham said unto his young men. Abide ye here 
 with the ass ; and I and the lad will go yonder and worship 
 and come again to you. 
 
 " And Abraham took the wood of the burnt offering, and 
 laid it upon Isaac his son ; and he took the fire in his hand 
 and a knife ; and they went both of them together. 
 
 " And Isaac spake unto Abraham his father and said, My 
 father ; and he said, Here am I my son. And he said, Behold 
 the fire and the wood : but where is the lamb for a burnt 
 offering ? 
 
 " And Abraham said, My son, God will provide himself 
 a lamb for a burnt offering : so they went both of them 
 together. 
 
 " And they came to the place which God had told him of; 
 and Abraham built an altar there, and laid the wood in order, 
 and bound Isaac his son, and laid him on the altar upon the 
 wood. 
 
 " And Abraham stretched forth his hand and took the 
 knife to slay his son. 
 
 " And the angel of the Lord called unto him out of heaven 
 and said, Abraham, Abraham, and he said here am I. 
 
 " And he said, lay not thine hand upon the lad, neither do 
 thou anytliing unto him ; for now I know that thou fearest 
 God, seeing thou has not withheld thy son, thine only son 
 from me.
 
 — 159 — 
 
 " And Abraham lifted up his eyes and looked, and beheld 
 behind him a ram caught in a thicket by his horns ; and 
 Abraham went and took the ram and oflfered him up for a 
 l)urnt offering in the stead of his son. 
 
 " And Abraham called the name of that place Jehovah- 
 jireh, as it is said to this day, In the mount of the Lord it 
 shall be seen. 
 
 " And the angel of the Lord called unto Abraham out of 
 heaven the second time. 
 
 " And said, by myself have I sworn, saith the Lord, 
 because thou hast done this thing and hast not withheld thy 
 son, thine only son. 
 
 " That in blessing I will bless thee, and in multiplying I 
 will multiply thy seed as the stars of the heaven, and as the 
 sand which is upon the sea shore ; and thy seed shall possess 
 the gate of his enemies. 
 
 " And in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be 
 blessed, because thou hast obeyed ray voice." 
 
 The Gospel according to St. Luke, chap, i., verse 67, begins 
 in this way : — 
 
 " And his father, Zacharias, was filled with the Holy Ghost, 
 and prophesied, saying, 
 
 " Blessed be the Lord God of Israel ; for he hath visited 
 and redeemed his people. 
 
 " And hath raised up an horn of salvation for us in the 
 house of his servant David. 
 
 " As he spake by the mouth of his Holy prophets, which 
 have been since the world began. 
 
 " That we should be saved from our enemies and from the 
 hand of all that hate us. 
 
 " To perform the mercy promised to our fathers, and to 
 remember his Holy Covenant. 
 
 " The oath which he swore to our father Abraham — 
 
 " That he would grant unto us, that we being delivered 
 out of the hand of our enemies might serve him without 
 fear." 
 
 In the Epistle to the Hebrews, chap, vi., verse 13 :' — 
 
 " For when God made promise to Abraham, because he 
 could swear by no greater, he sware by liimself. 
 
 " Saying, surely, blessing I will bless thee, and multiplying 
 I will multiply thee. 
 
 " And so after he had patiently endured, he obtained the 
 promise." 
 
 In the 11th chapter of the Epistle to the Hebrews, verse 
 17, it is said : —
 
 — 160 — 
 
 " By faith, Abraham, when ho was tried, offered up Isaac ; 
 and he that had received the promises, offered up his only 
 begotten son. 
 
 " Of whom it was said. That in Isaac shall thy seed be 
 called. 
 
 " Accounting; that God was able to raise him up, even 
 from the dead ; from whence also he received him in a 
 figure." 
 
 Now, my lord, I ask whether it is possible, by any fair 
 mode of construction, to reconcile that distinct prophecy and 
 Divine record, given in the Old, confirmed in the New Testa- 
 ment, with the account in this passage from Dr. Williams''s 
 essay? "When the fierce ritual of Syria, with tlie awe of a 
 Divine voice, bade Abraham slay his son, he did not reflect 
 that he had no perfect theory of the absolute to justify him in 
 departing from traditional revelation." Why, my lord, not 
 only is the construction different, but the whole story is 
 different. The solution here is that Moloch, the author of 
 the fierce ritual of Syria, suggested to Ahraliam the sacrifice 
 of his child ; that Abraham disobeyed the voice of God in his 
 conscience, and was about to sacrifice the child — "not re- 
 flecting that he had no perfect theory of the absolute," (what- 
 ever that may mean) — " not reflecting that he liad no perfect 
 theory of the absolute to justify him in departing from 
 traditional revelation ; but trusted that the Father, whose 
 voice from heaven he heard at heart, was better pleased with 
 mercy than with sacrifice, and his trust was his righteousness. 
 Its seed was sown from heaven, but it grew in the soil of an 
 honest and good heart. So, in each case, we trace principles 
 of reason and right, to which our heart perpetually responds ; 
 and our response to which is a truer sign of faith than such 
 deference to a supposed external authority, as would quench 
 these principles themselves." 
 
 My lord, it would be really difiicult to conceive two state- 
 ments more entirely at variance as to their purport and 
 meaning, and also as to their language. It is attempted to be 
 justified, so far as I recollect — I am sure I mean to state my 
 friend's argument quite fairly — it is attempted to be justified 
 by reference to a speculation of a learned divine ; and it is 
 said, if Bishop Warburton entertained and published the 
 opinion he did, there is nothing extraordinary in this state- 
 ment by Dr. Williams. My lord, the passage referred to in 
 Warburton, is in his celebrated vvork of the Divine Legation ; 
 and I would suggest to your lordship it may possibly be one 
 of those chapters Avhich it will be incumbent on the Court to
 
 — 161 — 
 
 read — to read legally ; I mean with a view to this question. 
 If, indeed, it could be shown that so great a divine as War- 
 burton entertained anything like the idea which is expressed 
 by Dr. AVilliams, it might well excite surprise. But even 
 then, according to my view of the observations in the Gorham 
 Case and in Burder and Heath, it would not bring the writer 
 of this essay within the scope of the principle there laid 
 down ; because it is impossible that one isolated opinion in a 
 book of general orthodoxy could cover a gross heresy. How- 
 ever, even admitting for the sake of the argument, that the 
 principle could be carried to that extent, your lordship will 
 find nothing of the kind in this chapter of the J)lvln6 
 Legation. 
 
 It is a totally different statement. I will state in a few w^ords 
 what Warburton's theory was. It was not only built on the 
 admission that the account in Genesis was a most important 
 historical record of a Divine interposition, but he carried the 
 value of the record even further than others had done, because 
 he said that the three days during which Abraham remained 
 with Isaac in Mount Moriah, were typical of the period between 
 the Crucifixion and Resurrection of the Saviour. To appeal 
 to Warburton, therefore, as an authority upon this subject, is 
 like quoting Lowth against the predictive element in prophecy, 
 when, by his translation of the o3rd of Isaiah, he has shown it 
 was even more than predictive. 
 
 In vol. v., book vi., sec. 5, 11, Warburton says : — " To 
 the second point, which is to show that the command to 
 offer up Isaac was the very revelation of Christ's day, or the 
 redemption of mankind by his death and sufferings," that is 
 the thesis which the learned writer proposes to himself, and 
 he goes on and says, " We conclude, and surely not unreason- 
 ably, that there is something more in the command than these 
 interpreters, resting in the outside relation, have j-et discovered 
 to us." I will not now read the whole chapter, and it will be 
 impossible to understand fully the argument unless jonx 
 lordship will, at least, glance over the chapter, if you think it 
 of sufficient consequence. I only read those passages which I 
 think are of importance to my argument. He goes on to say, 
 " We must needs conclude that the command was not according 
 to the common notion, a trial only, because it comes after all 
 God's dispensations. Yet, as the sacred text assures us, it 
 was a trial ; and as a trial necessarily precedes the employment 
 and reward of the person tried, we must needs conclude that, 
 as no employment, so some benefit followed this trial. Now, 
 on our interpretation, a benefit, as we shall see, did follow,
 
 — 162 — 
 
 Wo have reason, therefore, to conclude that this interpretation 
 is the true." Thou he goes on, " We see, as was said before, 
 how all God's revelations to him, to this last, ultimately related 
 to that mystical, fundamental promise made to him on his 
 first vocation, that in him should all families of the earth be 
 blessed. God opens the scheme of his dispensations by exact 
 and regular steps ; and the revelations follow one another 
 graduallv, and in order. Abraham is first commanded to go 
 into a hind which should be shown to him ; then that land, to 
 be possessed by his numerous posterity, is exhibited before 
 him. Its distinct boundaries are afterwards marked out. He 
 is next assured, while yet childless, that his posterity, to which 
 so much was promised, should not be from an adopted son, but 
 from out of his own loins. He is then told that this son should be 
 born of Sarah, which is followed by a formal execution of the 
 covenant confirmed by the Seal of Circumcision. After all 
 this, the birth of Isaac is predicted, who being born at the 
 appointed time ; Tshmael is ordered to be sent away, to design 
 with more certainty the succession of the son by Sarah. Here 
 we see throughout, a gradual opening, and fit preparative for 
 some farther revelation, which in pursuance of this regular 
 scheme of progressive dispensations, could be no other than 
 that of the redemption of mankind by the Messiah, the com- 
 pletion of the whole economy of grace, as it only is the expla- 
 nation of his first and fundamental promise, that in Abraham 
 should all the families of the earth be blessed. But now, the 
 sole remaining revelation of God's will to Abraham, recorded 
 by the sacred historian, is the command to ofier up his son 
 Isaac. This command then, as there is no other that can 
 pretend to be the revelation in question, and as we have shown 
 it must be somewhere or other recorded in Abraham's story, 
 is the very revelation we seek, which perfects all the foregoing, 
 and makes the whole series complete and uniform. And the place 
 in which we find it is its proper station, for being the comple- 
 tion of the rest, it must needs be the last in order." There- 
 fore the design and intent of this learned bishop, is to point 
 out that in this record (the authenticity of which he never for 
 a moment questioned) we find the regular completion and 
 perfection of the whole system of prophecy by typical revela- 
 tion, which was designed for accomplishing of redemption of 
 mankind by the Messiah. Then he goes on to say (s. 4) 
 " We must know then that this revelation, as shall be proved 
 from the words of Jesus, " Abraham rejoiced to see my day, 
 and he saw it and was glad," was ardently desired and sought 
 after by the patriarch. Now the happiness or redemption of
 
 — 163 — 
 
 " mankind promised, on Abraham's first vocation, to come 
 through him, could not but make him more and more in- 
 quisitive into the manner of its being brought about, in pro- 
 portion as he found himself to be more and more personally 
 concerned as the instrument of so great a blessing. But every 
 new revelation would show him still farther interested in this 
 honour. Therefore by the time Ishmael was ordered to be 
 sent away, and the promised seed fixed in Isaac, we must 
 needs suppose him very impatient to understand the mystery 
 of redemption, and so fitly prepared to receive this last and 
 supreme revelation. This, in the like cases, we find to be the 
 disposition and state of mind in the holy men of old. Thus 
 Daniel, by the study of the prophecies of Jeremiah, under- 
 standing the approaching restoratiou of the Jews, applies him- 
 self by fasting and prayer for God's further information; and 
 the angel Gabriel is sent unto him. So John, anxious and 
 solicitous for the sufteriug Church being in prayers on the 
 Lord's days, was favoured with all his glorious revelations. 
 Again, the new light in which this command is placed, dispels 
 all that perplexity in the common interpretation (taken notice 
 of above) arising from our ideas of a trial ; where that which 
 should in use and reason, go before some extraordinary favour 
 is made to come after all. But now, according to our sense of 
 the command, the trial, as is meet, precedes the last and greatest 
 favour ever bestowed by on God Abraham." (Of course my 
 friend must understand that I am only reading such passages 
 as I think important to my argument, otherwise I must read 
 the whole chapter.) At page 226, he says, " Again, as the 
 high importance of this revelation seemed to require its being 
 given in the strong and forcible way of action, so nothing can 
 be conceived more opposite to convey the information required, 
 than this very action. Abraham desired earnestly to be let 
 into the mystery of the redemption ; and God, to instruct 
 him (in the best manner humanity is capable of reciving in- 
 struction) in the infinite extent of Divine goodness to man- 
 kind, who spared not his own Son, but delivered Him up for 
 us all, let Abraham feel, by experience, what it was to lose a 
 beloved son. Take now thy son, thine only son Isaac ; the 
 son born mirculously when Sarah was past childbearing, as 
 Jesus was miraculously born of a pure virgin. The duration 
 too, of the action was the same as that between Christ's death 
 and resurrection, both which were designed to be represented 
 in it, and still farther, not only the final archietypical sacrifice 
 of the son of God was figured in the command to offer Isaac, 
 but the intermediate typical sacrifice, in the Mosaic economy, 
 
 M 2
 
 — 164 — 
 
 was represented, by the permitted sacrifice of the ram offered 
 up instead of Isaac. The last reason I shall offer in support 
 of this point, that the command concerning Isaac was this 
 revelation of Christ's day, or the redemption of mankind by 
 his death and sufferings, is the allusion which Jesus makes (in 
 those words, Abraham, rejoiced to see my day, &c.) to the 
 following words of Moses, in the history of the command. 
 And Abraham called the name of that place Jehovah-jii-eh, 
 as it is said to this day. In the Mount of the Lord it shall 
 bo seen." Then at page 232, he says, " The sum then of the 
 argument is this — Jesus expressly says that Abraham saw and 
 rejoiced to see his day, or the great sacrifice for the sins of 
 mankind by representation. The records of sacred history 
 must needs verify his assertion. But there is no place in 
 Scripture which presents the least traces of this revelation, 
 except the history of the command to offer Isaac. This history 
 not only easily and naturally admits of such a sense, but even 
 demands it. And reciprocally, this sense gives all imaginable 
 light to the history, and removes the greatest difliculties 
 attending the common interpretation of it. Hence we con- 
 clude with certainty, that the command to Abraham to offer 
 up his son, was only an information in action, which, at 
 Abraham's earnest request, God was graciously pleased to give 
 liim of the great sacrifice of Christ for the redemption of man- 
 kind. The thing to be proved, two great ends seem to be 
 gained by this interpretation ; the one to free the command 
 from a supposed violation of natural law ; the other, to sup- 
 port the connexion and dependency between the two revela- 
 tions, for this interpretation makes the history of the command 
 a direct prophecy of Christ as Reedmer of the world, whereas 
 the common brings it at most but to a typical intimation. 
 Now the defenders of the common interpretation confess that 
 " The evidence of direct prophecies is superior to that of types." 
 Therefore the object of Bishop Warburton is to strengthen, 
 not to weaken the record, by showing it was not only a pro- 
 phecy as he admits, and says of course it cannot be questioned 
 as our Lord himself has said so, not only as it is prophesy or 
 a type, but what he pleases to call " An information in action 
 which at Abraham's earnest request, God was graciously 
 pleased to give him, of the great sacrifice of Christ for the 
 redemption of mankind." He is there dealing with plausible 
 objections, and it is not inapposite to observe, that he is 
 answering Collins, one of the infidel writers of that day. And 
 he says, at page 238, " Nay, I might go further, and say that 
 this is not the only place where the true reason of the com-
 
 — 165 — 
 
 mand is plainly hinted at. The author of the Epistle to the 
 Hebrews, speaking of this very comn)and, says, By faith, 
 Abraham when he was tried, oSered up Isaac, accounting that 
 God was able to raise him up even from the dead, from whence 
 also he received him in a figure en iiapaboah in a parable, a 
 mode of information either by words or actions, which consists 
 in putting one thing for another. Now, in a writer who 
 regarded this commanded action a>s a representative informa- 
 tion of the redemption of mankind, nothing could be more 
 fine or easy than this expression. For though Abraliam did 
 not indeed receive Isaac restored to life after a real dissolution, 
 yet the son being in this action to represent Christ suffering 
 death for the sins of the world, when the father brought him 
 safe from Mount Moriali, after three days (during which the 
 son was in a state of condemnation to death), the father plainly 
 received him under the character of Christ's representative as 
 restored from the dead. For as his being brought to the 
 JSIount, there bound, and laid upon the altar, figured the death 
 and sufferings of Christ, so his being taken from thence alive, 
 as properly figured Christ's resurrection from the dead. With 
 the highest propriety, therefore, and elegance of speech might 
 Abraham be said to receive Isaac from the dead, in a parable 
 or in representation. But the nature of the command not being 
 understood, these words of the Epistle have been hitherto 
 interpreted, to signify only that Isaac was a type of Christ, in 
 the same sense that the old Tabernacle, in this epistle, is 
 called a type rjws iiapaboah, that is a thing designed by Holy 
 Spirit, to have both a present significancy and a future. 
 
 At page 248 he says, " However I desire it may be ob- 
 served in corroboration of my sense of the comm.and that the 
 resemblance to Christ's sacrifice in all the circumstances of the 
 story was so strong, that interpreters could never overlook the 
 resemblance in their comments on the passage." Then, at 
 page 247, this is the second part of the section ; what does that 
 begin witli ? I come now to the other part of this discourse ; 
 what is the object of that ? " To show that the interpretation 
 here given entirely dissipates all those blustering objections 
 which infidelity hath raised up against the historic truth of 
 the relation." 
 
 My lord, in confirmation of what I said to you yesterday, 
 viz., that the w'riters in this book shine by reflected light, 
 very often a light from the old Deists of England, you will 
 find, in page 2(^8, a passage which Warburton cites from Lord 
 Shaft esbmy''s Characteristics — Lord Shaftesbury was an avowed 
 Deist. The passage contains precisely the same heresy as is
 
 — 166 — 
 
 to be found in this essay. " To me," says the noble writer, 
 " it plainly ai)i)ears, that in the early tinies of all religions, 
 when nations were yet barbarous and savaije, there was ever 
 an aptness or tendency towards the dark part of superstition, 
 whieh, amongst many other horrors, produced that of human 
 Kacriiico. Something of this nature might possibly be deduced 
 even from Holy Writ." To this a note refers, in the follow- 
 ing words: " Oen., xxii., 1, and Judges, xi., 30. These places, 
 relating to Abraham and Jephthah, are cited only with respect 
 to the notion which these primitive warriors may be said 
 to have entertained concerning this horrid enormity, so 
 common amongst the inhabitants of Palestine and other neigh- 
 bouring nations. It appears that even the elder of these 
 Hebrew princes was under no extreme surprise on this trying 
 revelation. Nor did he think of expostulating, in the least, 
 on this occasion, when at another time he could be so importu- 
 nate for the pardon of an inhospitable, murderous, impious, 
 and incestuous city. Gen., xviii., 23." (That is taken from 
 Lord Shafieshurjfs Characteristics, vol. iii., page 1 24.) Bishop 
 Warburton, who is cited as an authority for this heresy, 
 writes the whole second part of this discourse to disprove 
 "those blustering objections," these are his words, "which 
 infidelity hath raised up against the historic truth of the rela- 
 tion." That is the only authority which is cited to cover the 
 offence of this passage in the Essay of Dr. Williams, and I 
 leave it with great confidence in your lordship's hands. 
 
 I must also call ^^our lordship''s attention, as my friend 
 referred to it, to a pamphlet by Dr. Jelf, entitled Specific Evi- 
 dence of Unsoundness in the Volume entitled Essays and 
 Reviews." My lord, Dr. Jelf is the very learned and accom- 
 plished clerk who, in the lower house of Convocation moved the 
 condemnation to these essays and reviews. I forgot to men- 
 tion, in the history of the case, that this book of Essays and 
 Reviews had been presented by the lower house of Convocation 
 to the upper house. At page 30 of this pamphlet, in section 5, 
 entitled the Heretical Parody of Holy Writ, he puts on one 
 side extracts from Dr. Williams's article, and on the other 
 side he puts the passages from the Bible to which they refer. 
 In the same page is a note, to which I wish to draw your 
 lordship's attention. " Thinking it possible that the writer of 
 the second essay might be simply quoting the author whom 
 he was reviewing, I had recourse to the original, of which I 
 subjoin a translation : — ' Tn him (Abraham) we see before us 
 the high, noble mind, which, after long internal struggles, 
 first broke the slavery and curse of the bloody man-murdering.
 
 — 167 — 
 
 child-murdering service of Moloch, and that because he 
 thought more highly of God's immediate voice in conscience 
 and reason, than of all the tradition of his kindred (Stammge- 
 nossen). It was on the strength of this faith in the unerring 
 voice of God in man, that he rejected the bloody custom, and 
 introduced the saving symbol of circumcision.' " That is from 
 Bunsen's Gott in der Geschichte (1857), p. 160. 
 
 I therefore leave this eleventh Article with perfect convic- 
 tion upon one point, viz., that it will be impossible to reconcile 
 the passages it charges heretical to the formularies of the 
 Church of England by any fair mode of construction whatever. 
 I shall say no more upon the subject. I shall leave this argu- 
 ment to the consideration of the Court. 
 
 Now 1 come to the twelfth article, which charges two 
 passages at pages 81, 87. We have taken two separate pas- 
 sages, and from those two passages we have inferred that Dr. 
 Williams " did advisedly maintain and affirm that Christ did 
 not suffer, nor was crucified, dead, and buried, to reconcile his 
 Father to us, nor to be a sacrifice for the original guilt, as well 
 as for the actual sins of men. That the offering of Christ is 
 not the perfect redemption, propitiation, and satisfaction for 
 the sins of the whole world, both original and actual." That 
 is what we say is the fair construction of the passages we have 
 set forth. Now, to that, first of all, great objection is taken. 
 It is said, " you have taken two passages separated from each 
 other by an interval of six pages." That is unquestionably 
 true ; we say is contained the following passages at pages 81 
 and 87. Your lordship must recollect that this is a review, 
 and it is not only a review, but a review by a person who 
 writes a very loose, slipshod style, and who scatters his 
 opinions up and down the whole of the aVticle. Now, then, 
 the fair test of whether we were authorized in separating the 
 two portions is this : if we had begun at page 81, and tran- 
 sribed all the pages from 8J to 87 (the book itself, the whole 
 volume, as I have already said, being appended to the arti- 
 cles), we should then have come exactly to the same con- 
 clusion to which we have now come in the charging part of our 
 articles ; only we should have included in it a great many 
 other things besides those which we have made the subjects of 
 separate charges, I should have no objection, I am sure, 
 except that it would be a waste of type and paper to have all 
 the pages copied out from page 81 to page 87, and then the 
 charging part would remain exactly as it is now. It is not as 
 if the intervening part offered any fair explanation which 
 would take away the gist of the charge against Dr. Williams,
 
 — 168 — 
 
 I submit that is not the case ; that, of course, is a question of 
 construction for the Court. I submit it is not the case. It 
 stands as a definite proposition at pa^e 81. " Propitiation 
 wouhl be tbe recovery of that peace, which cannot be while sin 
 divicb's us from the Searcher of Hearts." We niiglit have 
 omitted that, except tliat we thou^lit it right to connect the 
 two together as containing the same idea; we migbthave stood 
 altogctber upon the passage in page 87 witbout reference to 
 page 81, for page 87 contains this (1 must speak plainly) most 
 ottensive passage, "■ Salvation from evil through sharing the 
 Saviour's spirit, was shifted into a notion of purchase from God, 
 tb rough the price of his bodily pangs; the deep drama of 
 heart and mind became externalized into a commercial transfer, 
 and tbis eliected by a form of ritual."" My lord, at page 80 of 
 tliis book, at tbe first paragraph, your lordship will find the 
 passage which my friend read. It begins thus : — " This 
 recognition of Christ as the moral Saviour of mankind may 
 seem to some Baron Bunsen's most obvious claim to the name 
 of Cbristian." Now, first, I ask the Court what is the plain 
 meaning of the words above by themselves ? Can any one 
 accustomed to an honest and ingenuous construction of 
 opinions, spoken or written, doubt that it is intended dis- 
 tinctly to deny that salvation from evil was a purchase from 
 God at the price of our Saviour's bodily pangs ? Can anybody 
 doubt that the bodily sufferings of our Saviour are there denied 
 as baving anything to do with our salvation ? And can any 
 one reconcile tbat with the awful language of the litany on this 
 point ? Can any one doubt tbat this passage strikes at tlie 
 root of a doctrine so mysterious and awful, that one is 
 reluctant to refer to it in a legal proceeding, even in an Ecclesi- 
 astical Court ? Can any one doubt that it strikes at the root 
 of the doctrine of the sufferings of our Lord having purchased 
 our redemption ? And what is the meaning of the words, 
 " tbe deep drama of heart and mind became externalized into 
 a commercial transfer, and this effected by a form of ritual." 
 What is " a commercial transfer V What can be the meaning 
 of these words but tlie plain and simple meaning, that the 
 bodily sufferings of our Lord, and the act of the resurrection, 
 are to be " spiritualized," if they like to call it so — " idealized," 
 1 believe, is the cant term — are to be " idealized " and " alle- 
 gorized" away with all the other facts of our Lord's bistory? 
 Tbat is a theory taken from the German Sti-auss, in the very 
 book my friend referred to (only that he had regard to the 
 " terminology," as they call it, of Scripture), and he eventually 
 resolved all the facts of the resurrection into mythical appear-
 
 — 169 — 
 
 ancos, only Intended to convey a spiritual lesson. " The deep 
 drama of heart and mind hecame externalized into a commer- 
 cial transfer, and this eft'ected by a form of ritual." 
 
 Now, having addressed your lordship upon what is the 
 plain meaning of the words, I ask the Court to look at the 
 defence which is offered, Tiie defence is that he was intend- 
 ing to reprobate the Roman Catholic superstition. The at- 
 tempt is to open a door of escape from this clear disavowal of 
 Christian doctrine, under the miserable pretext of a " No 
 Popery !" cry. Now, my lord, is there a word in the book 
 itself about the Roman Catholic religion having led to this ? 
 Is there a syllable ? Is there a note in the many editions of 
 this work which has undertaken to offer this explanation ? I 
 ask, then, is it competent to a clergyman of the Church of 
 England to express himself in language which can bear but 
 one import to any plain man, and reserve for his defence in 
 Court an ingenious solution which is not to be found in his 
 work, nay, is at variance with the whole context of it ; and 
 which refers apparently to a subject with which it has no con- 
 nexion I Your lordship will remember that at this stage I, 
 who appear for the prosecution, must always, to a certain 
 extent, labour under an embarrassment, because I am not 
 now arguing the case as if I was calling for judgment on the 
 defendant. I am arguing merely upon the admissibility of 
 the articles. I therefore do not say what amount of sentence 
 the Court might think fit to pass upon the defendant for this 
 offence, but that it is a subject for ecclesiastical censure in the 
 Court of the Archbishop of Canterbury I can entertain no 
 doubt whatever. Your lordship will see that the passages we have 
 selected from Scripture, with which we say it is at variance. 
 I would rather not at this moment enter into such an inquiry 
 more minutely. 
 
 Now I come to the thirteenth article. Dr. Williams says, 
 " The first Christians held that the heart was purified by 
 faith ; the accompanying symbol, water, became by degrees 
 the instrument of purification. Holy baptism was at first 
 preceded by a vow, in which the young soldier expressed his 
 consciousness of spiritual truth ; but when it became twisted 
 into a false analogy with circumcision, the rite degenerated 
 into a magical form, and the Augustinian notion of a curse 
 inherited by infants, was developed in connexion with it." 
 Well, we thought that most plainly there was here "ad- 
 visedly maintained and affirmed that the element of water is 
 not a divinely ordained means whereby we receive the spiri- 
 tual grace in the sacrament of baptism." We thought it was
 
 — 170 — 
 
 most strongly to tlic thirty-seventh Article of Religion, and 
 that part of the Cliurch Catechism which we have set out, 
 which contain among other passages, this, " A death unto sin, 
 and a new birth unto righteousness ; for being by nature born 
 in sin, and the children of wrath, we are hereby made the 
 children of grace." Now the doctrine of the catechism must 
 certainly be taken to bo this : " For being by nature born in 
 sin, we are hereby made the children of grace." That is the 
 doctrine of the Catechism. Is that doctrine to be found, or I 
 should rather say, is not that doctrine attacked in the passage 
 before read. What is the meaning of saying "The first 
 Christians held that the heart was purified by faith; the 
 accompanying symbol, water, became by degrees the instru- 
 ment of purification ? What is the meaning of sin ? Holy 
 baptism was at first preceded by a vow, in which the young 
 soldier expressed his consciousness of spiritual truth ; but 
 when it became twisted into a false analogy with cii'cumcision, 
 the rite degenerated into a magical form, and the Augustiuian 
 notion of a curse inherited by infants, was developed in con- 
 nexion with it." Could the wriler have doubted for a moment 
 that he was prima facie a>t least opposing the plain language 
 of the Catechism ? What is the suggestion on his behalf? 
 That he is referring to a particular doctrine of St. Augustine, 
 with reference to the condemnation of infants who had died 
 unbaptized. Where is there the slightest reference to it ? 
 Where is there the slightest allusion to it ? If that be 
 so, surely a clergyman of the Church of England is bound 
 not so to express himself as to convey a totally different 
 meaning to every plain man who reads his book, and to 
 reserve himself for such a defence as that. I am not dis- 
 puting now as to St. Augustine''s doctrine. My friend, Mr. 
 Coleridge, will look into that matter. I have not had time to 
 do so ; I have no doubt my friend quoted the passage cor- 
 rectly. I do not know whether the result of that passage is 
 that the teaching of St. Augustine was so ; I have always 
 understood that St. Augustine held some doctrine about a 
 Limbus for infants, but perhaps I am wrong as to that. I 
 say this is an explanation which should be found in the work 
 itself, if it applies at all ; and it is not so to be found there. As 
 to the notion of defending it by the Gorham case, with reference 
 to the Augustinian notion of a curse being inherited by 
 infants dying unbaptized, or any particular notion of that 
 kind, it is altogether a strained, unnatural, and improper con- 
 struction of the passage. If Dr. Williams meant to say so, 
 he either ought to have said it before, or he ought to be called
 
 — 171 — 
 
 upon now to say so. I confess myself I should have a great 
 curiosity to know if Dr. Williams were ordered to put in plain 
 language a defence of this, whether he would say. " I declare 
 that when I used these words, I meant to say that by nature 
 people were born in sin, and the children of wrath. I meant 
 to say they became the children of grace by baptism, but I 
 meant to say that St. Augustine was wrong when he said that 
 children dying unbaptized were condemned." I do not be- 
 lieve he would say that. I do not think so ill of Dr. 
 Williams as to think he would say so. It is perfectly lawful 
 for his advocate to use the argument, perfectly proper that he 
 should do so ; it shows the many resources his talent and 
 ingenuity furnish him with, but I am bound to say that I 
 cannot bring myself to believe that in writing that passage, 
 any such intention was in the mind of Dr. Williams. 
 
 I come to the next article, which is, perhaps, one of the 
 most serious in the whole catalogue. Dr. Williams says, 
 " Thus the incarnation becomes with our author as purely 
 spiritual as it was with St. Paul, the Son of David by birth is 
 the Son of God by the spirit of holiness." And we say that 
 herein "he did advisedly maintain and affirm that the incar- 
 nation of our Lord Jesus Christ was purely spiritual, and that 
 the Son of God did not take man's nature in the womb of the 
 Blesssed Virgin, or that he did therein advisedly maintain 
 and affirm a doctrine, position, or opinion, to that or the like 
 purport and ejffect, and that such doctrine, position, or opinion, 
 is contrary to, or inconsistent with, the second of the said 
 Articles of Religion." My learned friend says, " Here we are 
 articled for using the language of St. Paul, and he refers to 
 what St. Paul says in the Epistle to the Romans, chap, i., verse 
 S, and he read the words. I would ask the Coui-t to fix its 
 eye on the passage we have selected when I read the words of 
 Scripture. Dr. Williams says, " The incarnation becomes 
 with our author as purely spiritual as it was wdth St. Paul, 
 the Son of David by birth is the Son of God by the Spirit of 
 holiness." What does St. Paul say ? " Concerning his Son 
 Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David, 
 according to the flesh ; and declared to be the Son of God 
 with power, according to the spirit of holinesg." And there 
 my learned friend stopped ; unless I was mistaken, and unless 
 he has been misrepresented by the shorthand writer, he never 
 in any part of his argument read the words which follow, viz., 
 " According to the spirit of holiness by the resurrection from 
 the dead." 
 
 My lord, it does not, of course, require to be a very profound
 
 — 172 — 
 
 theologian to see that tliis addition alters entirely the whole 
 argument. Whereas, in the passage before you, a supernatural 
 truth is resolved into a sort of moral process. Dr. Williams's 
 words might bo used with perfect propriety of any religious 
 Christian living. The whole Incarnation, as a fact, is 
 "idealized" in the passage before you; whereas, St. Paul 
 em[)liatically points to the Resurrection as a dclaration of our 
 Lord's divinity to the world. With St. Paul the doctrine 
 was not, as is stated here, purely spiritual, moral, ideal, and 
 imaginary — it was a supernatural and Divine fact ; and I 
 press this strongly upon your lordship, because, though I 
 cannot profess any great acquaintance with German modes 
 or habits of thinking, still 1 believe the root of the whole 
 mischief lies there. It is the object of these writers to get 
 rid of the facts with which the truths of the Gospel are 
 connected, and to substitute for them ideas and speculations ; 
 and in this passage it is perfectly clear to my mind, and must 
 be so to any one who compares it with the Apostle's language, 
 that in the one case the Incarnation is spoken of as a spiritual 
 or ideal matter, and in the other it is spoken of as a super- 
 natural Divine fact, and the llesurrection itself is adduced as 
 a proof of it. Again I say, my lord, with regard to this and 
 all the other passages on these awful and mysterious subjects, 
 that no clergyman is at liberty to write with such levity and 
 carelessness ; that what he says is, apparently at least, con- 
 tradictory of the Formularies of the Church of England and 
 the whole teaching of the Bible ; and then, when he is brought 
 into a Court of Justice, to suggest, for the first time, a method 
 by which the obvious meaning of the words may be pared 
 away. 
 
 I come now to the fifteenth article, and here I am relieved 
 j&'om a great deal of difliculty, because, as your lordship has 
 so very recently given st judgment upon the main subject, 
 which is here set forth, I do not think it will be necessary for 
 me to seek to do more than refer your lordship to the judgment 
 in Burder v. Heath, which (as it is appealed from) I must do 
 under protest. My lord, I have a sort of recollection of an 
 elaborate argument on the subject of justification by faith, and 
 I have a sort of recollection of the entire discomfiture of that 
 argument in the judgment in Burder t. Heath ; so that I think 
 it will be very difficult not to admit this article on the part of 
 the judge who gave that judgment. The article sets forth this 
 passage : " For though he embraces, with more than orthodox 
 warmth, New Testament terms, he explains them in such a 
 way that he may be charged with using evangelical language
 
 — 173 — 
 
 in a philosophical sense. But in reply, he would ask, what 
 proof is there that the reasonable sense of St. Paul's words 
 was not the one which the Apostle intended. Why may not 
 justification by faith have meant the peace of mind or sense of 
 Divine approval, which comes of trust in a righteous God, 
 rather than a fiction of merit by transfer ? St. Paul would 
 then be teaching moral responsibility as opposed to sacer- 
 dotalism ; or that to obey, is better than sacrifice. Faith 
 would be opposed, not to the good deeds which conscience 
 requires, but to works of appeasement by ritual justification ; 
 would be neither an arbitrary ground of confidence, nor a 
 reward upon condition of our disclaiming merit, but rather a 
 verdict of forgiveness of our repentance, and of acceptance 
 upon the offering of our hearts." 
 
 The charge is that here "justification by faith means only 
 the peace of mind, or sense of Divine approval, which comes 
 of trust in a righteous God, and that justification is a verdict 
 of forgiveness upon our repentance, and of acceptance upon the 
 oftering of our hearts." 
 
 Now, my lord, the question of the author here is, " why 
 may not justification by faith have meant peace of mind, or 
 sense of the Divine approval V The answer to that is, that 
 he says it did, but the eleventh article of religion says it did 
 not, and you subscribe the articles. That is the simple 
 answer. It is j)erfectly clear that this is entirely opposed to 
 the spirit and language of the eleventh article of religion, 
 more opposed, if I may venture to say so, than the language of 
 Mr. Heath, was to the same article. 
 
 I now come to the sixteenth article, which I have already 
 discussed in the few words which I addressed to the Court at 
 the opening of my speech. Perhaps, none of the passages set 
 forth are more offensive, perhaps none show the recklessness 
 of the writer more than the passage with which we begin this 
 last extract. " So when he asks," (that is, Baron Bunsen) 
 " How long shall we bear tliis fiction of an external revelation, 
 that is, of one violating the heart and conscience instead of 
 expressing itself through them, or when he says, ' All this is 
 delusion for those who believe it but what is it in the mouths 
 of those who teach it V Or, when he exclaims, ' Oh ! the 
 fools ; who, if they do see the immense perils of this age, 
 think to ward them off by narrow-minded persecution,' and 
 when he repeats, ' Is it not time in truth, to withdraw the veil 
 from our misery ? to tear off the mask from hypocrisy, and 
 destroy that sham which is undermining all real ground under
 
 — 174 — 
 
 our foot? To point out tlio dangors which surround, nay 
 throaten ah-cady to engulf us,' there will be some who think 
 his language too veheincnt for good taste. Others will think 
 burning words needed by the disease of our time." 
 
 1 do not wish to repeat again what I have said upon this 
 ])oint, I have reflected upon it, and I do not think I expressed 
 myself in language at all too strong. I have not the smallest 
 wish to retract a word I said upon that point, therefore, I 
 leave that article with the observations I have already made 
 upon it, and I have no doubt whatever, that if that passage 
 stood alone, any Ecclesiastical Court would find itself bound 
 to censure tlie presumptuous, flippant, irreverent, and indecent 
 writer or citcr of those words. 
 
 My lord, I do not again refer to the concluding doggrel verses 
 which conclude the essay. I come to the seventeenth article, and 
 that is neither more nor less than a summary of all the charges 
 which we have drawn as is usual in articles of this description, 
 and as far as I know a correct summary, and one tending to 
 draw the attention of the accused, and the notice of the Court 
 to the principal offences with which he is charged. Again, as 
 to the lawfulness of pleading a " tendency, scope, object, and 
 design," I repeat that such pleading is perfectly lawful in a 
 case of this description. My lord, I again say, that many 
 works may be conceived published by a clergyman, the 
 "tendency, scope, object, and design," of which would obviously 
 be to bring very great scandal upon the Church ; and to bring 
 very great scandal upon the Church is an acknowledged 
 ecclesiastical offence, and subjects the person who does it to 
 ecclesiastical censure. 
 
 My lord, these are the observations, which supported by 
 those of my learned friends who follow me, I have to make to 
 your lordship upon the admissibility of these criminal articles 
 against Dr. Williams. 
 
 In conclusion — words even more welcome to myself than to 
 your lordship — I thus briefly sum up my argument for the 
 admissibility of these criminal articles. They are ranged 
 under two principal heads ; first, those which relate to the 
 great subject of the authority and inspiration of " God's Word 
 written," to use the expressive language of the twentieth of 
 of our Thirty-nine Articles. Secondly, those which relate to 
 the Cardinal catholic doctrines of the Church of Christ. We 
 contend that, though the Church has wisely not defined 
 inspiration, it has most certainly and clearly excluded that 
 sense of it, which would bring down the Bible to the level of 
 a poem written by Milton, or a sermon composed by Luther ;
 
 — 175 — 
 
 that the Church, while leaving full liberty to her ordained 
 ministers to criticize the text, and examine the history of 
 Holy Writ, has not conceded to them the license of denying, 
 according to the fancy of each particular minister, all the 
 historical facts of the Bible, with the truth of which all the 
 great doctrines of our salvation, all that gives dignity to the 
 life and hoj)e to the death of a Christian, are inextricably and 
 for ever bound up. These are the principal positions which 
 we maintain ; the legal soundness or unsoundness of them is 
 now submitted to the rude, but necessary criterion of the 
 admissibility of these criminal articles in the Court of the 
 Archbishop of Canterbury. It is said, that these positions 
 are the result of vulgar clamour, and will destroy the liberty 
 which we profess to give, and strip the Church of its learning. 
 Amono- those who raise this vuloar clamour are the whole 
 Episcopate of England, and nearly ten thousand of the clergy, 
 whose petition I now hold in my hand. The threat is idle, 
 the alarm ridiculous. Within the liberties of our present 
 formularies have arisen the mightiest intellects of England, 
 the greatest masters of thinking and of writing that have 
 adorned the literature of this or any other country in Christen- 
 dom. The vaunted learning in the particular instance of this 
 essay consists in a revival of the exploded heresies and dis- 
 carded trash of the early heretics, and the later deists. It is 
 a plagiarism of a plagiarism, the borrowed infidelity of a 
 particular school of German writers, who have adopted, often 
 with distinct acknowledgment, the once happily forgotten 
 blasphemies of the English deists. But, my lord, if the 
 threat were real, and the alarm well founded, if it were 
 as true, as we know it experimentally to be false, that the 
 Church would thus be stripped of her learning — better, I do 
 not hesitate to say, what is called by some, an " unlearned " 
 than what is known by all to be a dishonest church — better, 
 a thousand times better — at any risk of religious convulsions, 
 by new legislation to sweep away the articles, canons, and 
 fonnularies of our Church than to suffer them to remain — 
 corrupting alike the faith and the morals of the people, both 
 clergy and laity — Avhile the most solemn obligations, and the 
 plainest engagements incurred by subscription to these for- 
 mularies are permitted to be explained away by the most 
 most dishonest subterfuges, and the most palpable sophistry. 
 
 END OF SPEECH.
 
 APPENDIX. 
 
 In the Arches Court of Canterbury. 
 
 THE OFFICE OF THE JUDGE PROMOTED BY 
 THE BISHOP OF SALISBURY AGAINST WIL- 
 LIAMS. 
 
 In the Name of God, Amen, We, Stephen Lushington, 
 Doctor of Laws, Official Principal of the Arches Court of Can- 
 terbury, lawfully constituted, do by virtue of our office, at the 
 voluntary promotion of the Right Reverend Father in God, 
 Walter Kerr, by divine permission, Bishop of Salisbury, 
 object, article, and administer to you, the Reverend Rowland 
 Williams, Doctor in Divinity, a Clerk in Holy Orders of the 
 United Church of England and Ireland, and Vicar of the 
 Vicarage and Parish Church of Broad Chalk, with the Chapel 
 of Burr Chalk, otherwise Bower Chalk, in the County of 
 Wilts, in the Diocese of Salisbury and Province of Canter- 
 bury, all and singular the articles, heads, positions, or interro- 
 gatories hereunder written or hereafter mentioned, touching 
 and concerning your soul's health, and the lawful correction 
 and reformation of your manners and excesses, and more espe- 
 cially for having within the said Diocese of Salisbury and else- 
 where, within the said Province of Canterbury, offended 
 against the Laws Ecclesiastical of this Realm, by having, 
 within the last two years, written, printed, published, dis- 
 persed, and set forth in a Book entitled " Essays and Reviews," 
 a certain Article, or Essay, or Review, with divers notes 
 thereto, entitled, " Bunsen's Biblical Researches," and by 
 having, in such Article, or Essay, or Review, and in the notes 
 thereto, advisedly maintained and affirmed certain erroneous,- 
 strange, and heretical doctrines, positions, and opinions, con- 
 
 N
 
 — 178 — 
 
 trary and repugnant to the doctrine and teaching of the said 
 United Church of England and Ireland, as by law establislied, 
 and therehv contravening the statutes, constitutions, and 
 canons ecclesiastical of the realm, and against the peace and 
 unity of the Church as follows, to wit : — 
 
 First. We article and object to you, the said Reverend 
 Kowland Williams, that by the laws, statutes, constitutions, 
 and canons ecclesiastical of the realm, all ecclesiastical persons, 
 of what rank or condition soever, who have been admitted into 
 Holy Orders of the United Church of England and Ireland, 
 ought to adhere to and maintain with constancy and sincerity, 
 the doctrine and teaching of the Church ; and that whosoever 
 after having been so admitted, and having subscribed and 
 declared his assent to the Articles of Religion agreed upon by 
 the Archbishop and Bishops of both Provinces and the whole 
 clergy, in the Convocation liolden at London in the year of our 
 Lord 1562, and ratified by Royal Authority, shall revolt 
 fi'om, or impugn, or promulgate doctrines or positions con- 
 trary to, or inconsistent with, the said Articles, or any of 
 them, or any of the doctrines therein contained, or shall utter, 
 publish, promulgate, or declare anything contrary to, or in 
 derogation of, the doctrine and teaching of the said Church, as 
 contained and set forth in the book entitled " The Book of 
 Common Prayer, and Administration of the Sacraments and 
 other Rites and Ceremonies of the Church, according to the 
 use of the Church of England, together with the Psalter or 
 Psalms of David, pointed as they are to be said or sung in 
 Churches, and the form and manner of making, ordaining, and 
 consecrating of Bishops, Priests, and Deacons," ought to be 
 punished and corrected according to the gravity of his offence 
 and the exigency of the law. And we article and object of 
 everything in this and the subsequent Articles contained 
 jointly and severally. 
 
 Second. Also, we article and object to you, the said 
 Reverend Rowland Williams, that for many years last past, 
 you have been, and now are, a Clerk in Holy Orders of the 
 United Church of England and Ireland, and were, in the year 
 1859, rightfully and lawfully presented, instituted, and in- 
 ducted in and to the Vicarage and Parish Church of Broad 
 Chalk, with the Chapels of Burr Chalk and Alveston, other- 
 wise Bower Chalk and Alverdiston, in the County of Wilts, in 
 the Diocese of Salisbury, and Province of Canterbury, and for 
 and as the lawful Vicar of the said Parish and Chapels, you
 
 — 179 — 
 
 were from such your institution, until the said Chapelry of 
 Alveston, otherwise Alverdiston, was, to wit, in the month of 
 April, in the present year, 1861, by an Order of Her Majesty 
 in Council, made in pursuance of an Act of Parliament, passed 
 in the first and second years of the reign of Her present 
 Majesty, intituled, " An Act to abridge the holding of Bene- 
 fices in Plurality, and to make better provisions for the resi- 
 dence of the Clergy," constituted a separate benefice, commonly 
 accounted, reputed, and taken to be, and have been, ever since 
 the separation of the said Chapelry of Alveston, otherwise 
 Alverdiston, and now are Vicar of the said Vicarage and 
 Parish Church of Broad Chalk, with the Chapel of Burr Chalk, 
 otherwise Bower Chalk, and have since been and now are 
 commonly accounted, reputed, and taken to be. And we 
 article and object of any other time, parish, ordination, presen- 
 tation, institution, induction, benefice, or promotion, as shall 
 appear from the lawful proofs to be made in this Cause. And 
 we article and object as before. 
 
 Third. Also, we article and object to you, the said Re- 
 verend Rowland Williams, in supply of proof of the premises 
 in the next preceding article mentioned, and to all other 
 intents and purposes in the law whatsoever, and do exhibit 
 and hereto annex two certain paper writings, marked with the 
 letters A and B, and will that the same be received and taken 
 as part and parcel hereof, and as if herein read and inserted, 
 and do allege and propound the said paper writing A to be and 
 contain a true and authentic copy of the act of institution of 
 you, the said Reverend Rowland Williams, in and to the said 
 Vicarage and Parish Church of Broad Chalk, with the Chapels 
 of Burr Chalk and Alveston, otherwise Bower Chalk and 
 Alverdiston ; and the said paper writing, marked B, to be and 
 contain a true copy of the said original Order in Council. 
 That the said paper writings have been faithfully extracted 
 from the principal Registry of the said Bishop of Salisbury, at 
 the city of Salisbury, where the original Act of Institution of 
 you, the Reverend Rowland Williams, and the said original 
 Order in Council (duly registered pursuant to the provisions 
 of the said Act of Parliament) now I'emain, and have been 
 carefully collated, with the original entry of your Institution, 
 and with the said original Order in Council, and severally 
 agree therewith, and which copies are duly certified by Fitz- 
 herbert Macdonald, the Registrar of the said Bishop of Salis- 
 bury. That Rowland Williams, Clerk, D.D., mentioned in 
 the said Exhibits A and B, and you, the Reverend Rowland 
 
 N 2
 
 — 180 — 
 
 Williams, Doctor in Divinity, articled against in this Oause, 
 were, and arc, one and tlie saini! person, and not divers : and 
 that tho Vicarage of IJroad Chalk, with the Chapels of ]iurr 
 Chalk and Alveston, otherwise Bower Chalk and Alverdiston, 
 in tho County of Wilts, in the Diocese of Salisbury, and Pro- 
 vince of Canterbury, mentioned in the said I'^xhibits A andB; 
 and tho Vicarage of Hnjad Chalk, with the Chapels of Burr 
 Chalk and Alveston, otherwise liower Chalk and Alverdiston, 
 in the next preceding Article mentioned, was, and is, one 
 and the same ecclesiastical living, benefice, or promotion, and 
 not divers. And this was and is true, and we article and 
 object as before. 
 
 Fourth. Also, we article and object to you the said Re- 
 verend Rowland Williams, that notwithstanding the premises 
 in the foregoing Articles pleaded, you did within the last two 
 years, write, print, publish, disperse, give and sell, or cause to 
 be written, printed, published, dispersed, given and sold within 
 the said Diocese of Salisbury, and elsewhere, within the said 
 Province of Canterbury, in a book entitled " Essays and 
 Reviews," a certain Article, or Essay or Review, with divers 
 notes thereto, entitled " Bunseirs Biblical Researches, by 
 Rowland Williams, D.D., Vice Principal and Professor of 
 Hebrew, St. David's College, Lampeter, Vicar of Broad Chalk, 
 Wilts," the said Article, Essay, or Review, commencing at 
 the 50th page of the said book, and continuing from that to 
 the 93rd page inclusive. And we article and object as before. 
 
 Fifth. Also, we article and object to you, the said Reverend 
 Rowland Williams, that by your order, or with your consent, 
 by way of preface or introduction to the said hook, entitled, 
 " Essays and Reviews," it is printed as follows : — 
 
 " To the Reader, " It will be understood that the Authors 
 of the ensuing Essays are responsible for their respective Arti- 
 cles only. They have written in entire independance of each 
 other, and without concert or comparison. The volume, it is 
 hoped, will be received as an attempt to illustrate the advan- 
 tao;e derivable to the cause of relioious and moral truth, from a 
 tree handling in a becoming spirit, of subjects peculiarly liaole 
 to suffer by the repetition of conventional language, and from 
 traditional methods of treatment." 
 
 Also, we article and object to you, that the said book has, 
 with your knowledge and consent, passed through nine editions,
 
 — isl- 
 and that no other preface or introduction than the aforesaid 
 one has been prefixed thereto, or printed or published. And 
 this was and is true, and we article and object as before. 
 
 Sixth. Also, we article and object to you, the said Reverend 
 Rowland Williams, that the said articulate Essay or Review, 
 entitled, " 13unsen\s Biblical Researches," has not, during the 
 nine editions aforesaid, undergone any, or at least any material 
 or substantial alteration, but, is in all of them, exactly or 
 almost exactly in the very same words as it was when first 
 published by you, or by your order, in the first edition. And 
 this was and is true, and we article and object as before. 
 
 Seventh. And we further article and object to you, the said 
 Reverend Rowland Williams that in the said Article, Essay, 
 or Review, are contained the following passages, that is to 
 say: — at pages 60 and 61. 
 
 " As in his Egypt our author sifts the historical date of the 
 Bible, so in his Gott in der Geschichte, he expounds its directly 
 religious element. Lamenting, like Pascal, the wretchedness 
 of our feverish being, when estranged from its eternal stay, he 
 traces, as a countryman of Hegel, the Divine thought bringing 
 order out of confusion. Unlike the despairing school, who 
 forbid us trust in God or in conscience, unless we kill our souls 
 with literalism, he finds salvation for men and States only in 
 becoming acquainted with the Author of our life, by whose 
 reason the v/orld stands fast, whose stamp we bear in our fore- 
 thought, and whose voice our conscience echoes. In the Bible, 
 as an expression of devout reason, and therefore to be read 
 with reason in freedom, he finds record of the spiritual giants 
 whose experience generated the religious atmosphere we 
 breathe." 
 
 at pages 82 and 83. 
 
 " If we would estimate the truth of such views, the full 
 import of which hardly lies on the surface, we find two lines of 
 inquiry present themselves as criteria : and each of these 
 divides itself into two branches. First, as regards the subject 
 matter, both spiritual aftection and metaphj^sical reasoning 
 forbid us to confine revelations like those of Christ to the first 
 half century of our era, but show at least affinities of our faith 
 existing in men's minds, anterior to Christianity, and renewed 
 with deep echo from living hearts in many a generation.
 
 — 182 — 
 
 Ao-ain, on the side of external criticism, we find the evidences 
 of our canonical books and of the patristic authors nearest to 
 them, are sulHcient to prove ilhistration in outward act of prin- 
 ciples perpetually true ; but not adequate to guarantee narra- 
 tives inherently incredible, or precepts evidently wrong. 
 Hence wo are obliged to assume in ourselves a verifying faculty, 
 not unlike the discretion which a mathematician would use in 
 weighing a treatise on geometry, or the liberty which a musi- 
 cian would reserve in reporting a law of harmony. Thus, as 
 we are expressly told, we are to have the witness in ourselves. 
 It is not our part to dictate to Almighty God, that He ought 
 to have spared us this strain upon our consciences ; nor in 
 giving us through His Son a deeper revelation of His own 
 presence, was He bound to accompany His gift by a special 
 form of record. Hence there is no antecedent necessity that 
 the least rational view of the gospel should be the truest, or 
 that our faith should have no human element, and its records 
 be exempt from historical law. llather we may argue, the 
 more Divine the germ, the more human must be the deve- 
 lopment." 
 
 at pages 77 and 78. 
 
 " But, if such a notion alarms those who think that, apart 
 from omniscience belonging to the Jews, the proper conclusion 
 of reason is atheism ; it is not inconsistent with the idea that 
 Almighty God has been pleased to educate men and nations, 
 employing imagination no less than conscience, and suffering 
 His lessons to play freely within the limits of humanity and 
 itt shortcomings. Nor will any fair reader rise from the pro- 
 phetical disquisitions, without feeling that he has been under 
 the o-uidance of a master''s hand. The e-reat result is to vindi- 
 cate the work of the Eternal Spirit ; that abiding mnueuce, 
 which as our church teaches us in the Ordination Service, 
 underlies all others, and in which converge all images of old 
 time and means of grace now ; temple. Scripture, finger, and 
 hand of God ; and again, preaching, sacraments, waters which 
 comfort, and flame which burns. If such a Spirit did not 
 dwell in the Church the Bible would not be inspired, for .the 
 Bible is, before all things, the written voice of the congrega- 
 tion. Bold as such a theory of inspiration may sound, it was 
 the earliest creed of the Church, and it is the only one to 
 which the facts of Scripture answer. The Sacred Writers 
 acknowledge themselves men of like passions with ourselves, 
 and we are promised illumination from the Spirit which dwelt
 
 — 183 — 
 
 iu them. Hence, when we find our Prayer-book constructed 
 on the idea of the Church being an inspired society, instead of 
 objecting that every one of us is faUible, we should define 
 inspiration consistently with the facts of Scripture, and of 
 human nature. These would neither exclude the idea of falli- 
 bility among Israelites of old, nor teach us to quench the 
 Spirit in true hearts for ever. But if any one prefers thinking 
 the Sacred Writers passionless machines, and calling Luther 
 and Milton " uninspired," let him co-operate in researches by 
 which his theory, if true, will be triumphantly confirmed." 
 
 And we article and object to you, the said Reverend 
 Rowland Williams, that in the passages hereinbefore recited, 
 being portions of the said Article, Essay, or Review, you did 
 advisedly maintain and affirm, that the Bible or Holy Scripture 
 is an expression of devout reason, and the written voice of the 
 congregation, not the Word of God, nor containing any special 
 revelation of His truth, or of His dealings with mankind, nor 
 the rule of our faith ; or that you did therein advisedly main- 
 tain and affirm doctrines,, positions, or opinions to that, or the 
 like purport and effect, and that the said doctrines, positions, or 
 opinions are contrary to, or inconsistent with, the 6th, 7th, and 
 20th of the said articles of religion, and contrary to and inconsis- 
 tent with that part of the Nicene Creed, which declares in sub- 
 stance, that the Holy Ghost spake by the Prophets ; and contrary 
 to and inconsistent with the teaching of the said Church, as 
 contained in that portion of Holy Scripture, appointed in the 
 said Book of Common Prayer, to be read as tlie Epistle for 
 Christmas Day, which is in the words and figures following, to 
 wit: — '•'•The Epistle, Hebrews i. 1. — GOD, who at sundry 
 times and in divers manners, spake in time past unto the 
 fathers by the prophets, hath in these last days spoken unto 
 us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all tilings, by 
 whom also he made the worlds ; who being the brightness of 
 his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding 
 all things by the word of his power, when he had, by himself, 
 purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on 
 high ; beino- made so much better than the ano-els, as he hath 
 by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they. For 
 unto which of the angels said he at any time. Thou art my Son, 
 this day have I begotten thee 'i And again, I will be to him a 
 Father, and he shall be to me a Son ? And again, when he 
 bringeth in the first-begotten into the world, he saith, And 
 let all the angels of God worship him. And of the angels he 
 saith, Who maketh his angels spirits, and his ministers a
 
 — 184 — 
 
 fl:ime of tiro. But unto tlic Son ho salth, Thy throne, God, 
 is for over and ever ; a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of 
 thy kingdom : Tliou hast loved righteousness, and liated 
 iniquity ; therefore God, even thy God, hath anointed thee 
 with the oil of gladness above thy fellows. And, thou. Lord, 
 in the beginning hast laid the foundation of the earth ; and 
 the heavens are the works of thine hands : they shall perish, 
 but thou remainest ; and they all shall wax old as doth a 
 garment ; and as a vesture shalt thou fold them up, and they 
 shall be changed ; but thou art the same, and thy years shall 
 not fail." And as contained in that portion of the Holy 
 Scriptui-e, appointed in the said Book of common Prayer to 
 be read us the Epistle for the Epiphany, wliich is in the words 
 and figures following, to wit : — " The Epistle. Ephesians iii. 1. 
 — FOR this cause, I Paul, the prisoner of Jesus Christ for 
 you Gentiles ; if ye have heard of the dispensation of the grace 
 of God, which is given me to youward: How that by revela- 
 tion he made known unto me the mystery (as I wrote afore in 
 few words, whereby, when ye read, ye may understand my 
 knowledge in the mystery of Christ) which in other ages was 
 not made known unto the sons of men, as it is now revealed 
 unto his holy Apostles and Prophets by the Spirit ; That the 
 Gentiles should be fellow-heirs, and of the same body, and 
 partakers of his promise in Christ, by the Gospel : whereof I 
 was made a minister, accordino' to the 2;ift of the o-race of God 
 given unto me by the effectual working of his power. Unto 
 me, who am less tlian the least of all saints, is this grace 
 given, that I should preach among the Gentiles the unsearch- 
 able riches of Christ; and to make all men see what is the 
 fellowship of the mystery, which from the beginning of the 
 world hath been hid in God, who created all things by Jesus 
 Christ : to the intent, that now unto the principalities and 
 powers in heavenly places might be known by the Church the 
 manifold wisdom of God, according to the eternal purpose 
 which he purposed in Christ Jesus our Lord : In whom we 
 have boldness and access with confidence by the faith of him." 
 And as contained in the proper preface appointed in the said 
 Book of Common Prayer, upon Whit-Sunday and six days 
 afterwards, which is in the words and figures following, to wit ; 
 — " Upon Whit-Sunday, and six datjs after. — THROUGH 
 Jesus Christ our Lord ; according to whose most true promise, 
 the Holy Ghost came down as at this time from heaven with 
 a sudden great sound, as it had been a mighty wind, in the 
 likeness of fiery tongues, lighting upon the Apostles, to teach 
 them, and to lead them to all truth ; giving them both the
 
 — 185 — 
 
 gift of divers languages, and also boldness with fervent zeal 
 constantly to preach the Gospel unto all nations ; whereby we 
 have been brought out of darkness and error into the clear 
 light and true knowledge of thee, and of thy Son Jesus Christ. 
 Therefore with angels, &c." And this was and is true, and 
 we article and object as before. 
 
 Eighth. And we further article and object to you the said 
 E-everend Rowland Williams, that in the said Article, Essay, 
 or Review, are contained the following passages, to wit, at 
 pages 65, 66, and 67, are contained the following passages, and 
 notes thereto. 
 
 " In our own country each successive defence of the pro- 
 phecies, in proportion as its author was able, detracted some- 
 thing from the extent of literal prognostication ; and either 
 laid stress on the moral element, or urged a second, as the 
 spiritual sense. Even Butler foresaw the possibility, that 
 every prophecy in the Old Testament might have its elucida- 
 tion in contemporaneovis history ; but literature was not his 
 strong point, and he turned aside, endeavouring to limit it, 
 from an unwelcome idea. Bishop Chandler is said to have 
 thought twelve passages in the Old Testament directly 
 Messianic ; others restricted this character to five. Paley 
 ventures to quote only one. Bishop Kidder ^ conceded freely 
 an historical sense in Old Testament texts remote from adap- 
 tations in the New. The apostolic Middleton pronounced 
 firmly for the same principle ; Archbishop Newcorae ^ and 
 others proved in detail its necessity. Coleridge, in a sug- 
 gestive letter, preserved in the memoirs of Carey, the trans- 
 lator of Dante, threw secular prognostication altogether out of 
 the idea of prophecy.^ Dr. Arnold, and his truest followers, 
 
 " 2 Collected in the Boyle Lectures. 
 
 " 3 ^ Literal Translation of the Prophets, from Isaiah to Malachi, 
 with Notes, by Lowth, Blayney,Newcome, Wintle, Horsley, &c. London. 
 1836. A book unequal, but useful for want of a better, and of which a 
 revision, if not an entire recast, with the aid of recent expositors, might 
 employ our Biblical scholars. 
 
 " 1 • Of prophecies in the sense o£ prognostication I utterly deny that 
 there is any instance delivered by one of the illustrious Diadoche, whom 
 the Jewish church comprised in the name Prophets — and I shall regard 
 Cyrus as an exception, when I believe the 137th Psalm to have been 
 composed by David. 
 
 " ' Nay, I will'go farther, and assert that the contrary belief, the hypo-
 
 — 186 — 
 
 bear, not always consistently, on the same side. On the 
 other hand, the declamatory assertions, so easy in pulpits or on 
 platforms, and aided sometimes by powers, which produce 
 silence ratlu'r than conviction, have not only kept alive but 
 mai^nilied with uncritical exaggeration, whatever the Fathers 
 had dreamt or modern rhetoric could add, tending to make 
 prophecy miraculous. Keith's edition of Newton need not 
 be here discussed. Davison, of Oriel, with admirable skill, 
 threw his argument into a series as it were of hypothetical 
 sollogisms, with only the defect (which some readers overlook) 
 that his minor premise can hardly in a single instance be 
 proved. Yet the stress which he lays on the moral element 
 of prophecy atones for his sophistry as regards the predictive. 
 On the whole, even in England, there is a wide gulf between 
 the arguments of our genuine critics, with the convictions of 
 our most learned clergy, on the one side, and the assump- 
 tions of popular declamation on the other. This may be seen, 
 on a comparison of Kidder with Keith. But in Germany 
 there has been a pathway streaming with light, from Eichhorn 
 to Ewald, aided by the poetical penetration of Herder and the 
 philological researches of Gesenius, throughout which the 
 value of the moral element in prophecy has been progressively 
 raised, and that of the directly predictive, whether secular or 
 Messianic, has been lowered." 
 
 at pages 67, and 68. 
 
 " To this inheritance of opinion Baron Bunsen succeeds. 
 Knowing these things and writing for men who know them, 
 he has neither the advantage in argument of unique knowledge, 
 nor of unique ignorance." 
 
 at pages 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, and 74, 
 
 " He may read the Psalm xxxiv., that ' not a bone of the 
 righteous shall be broken,' but he must feel a difficulty in 
 detaching this from the context, so as to make it a prophecy 
 of the crucifixion. If he accepts mere versions of Psalm xxii. 
 17, he may wonder how ' piercing the hands and the feet ' can 
 fit into the whole passage ; but if he prefers the most ancient 
 Hebrew writing, he finds, instead of '• piercing ^^ the com- 
 
 thesis of prognostication, is an irreconcileable oppugnancy to our Lord's 
 declaration, that the times hath the Father reserved to Himself — Memoir 
 of Carey, vol. ii. p. 180."
 
 — 187 — 
 
 parison ' like a lion,' and this corresponds sufficiently with the 
 ' dogs ' of the first clause ; though a morally certain emenda- 
 tion would make the parallel more perfect by reading the word 
 ' lions ' in both clauses. In either case, the staring monsters 
 are intended, by whom Israel is surrounded and torn. Again 
 he finds in Hosea that the Lord loved Israel when he was 
 young, and called him out of Egypt to be his son ; but he 
 must feel, with Bishop Kidder, that such a citation is rather 
 accommodated to the flight of Joseph into Egypt, than a 
 prediction to be a ground of argument. Fresh from the ser- 
 vices of Christmas, he may sincerely exclaim. Unto us a child 
 is horn ; but he knows that the Hebrew translated Blighty 
 God, is at least disputable, that perhaps it means only Strong 
 and Mighty One, Father of an Age ; and he can never listen 
 to any one who pretends that the maiden's child of Isaiah vii. 
 1 6, was not to be born in the reign of A haz, as a sign against 
 the Kings Pekali and Resin. In the case of Daniel, he may 
 doubt whether all parts of the book are of one age, or what is 
 the starting point of the seventy weeks ; but two results are 
 clear beyond fair doubt, that the period of weeks ended in the 
 reign of Antiochus Epiphanes, and that those portions of the 
 book, supposed to be specially predictive, are a history of past 
 occurrences up to that reign. When so vast an induction on 
 the destructive side has been gone through, it avails little that 
 some passages may be doubtful, one perhaps in Zechariah, and 
 one in Isaiah, capable of being made directly Messianic, and a 
 chapter possibly in Deuteronomy foreshadowing the final fall 
 of Jerusalem. Even these few cases, the remnant of so much 
 confident rhetoric, tend to melt, if they are not already melted, 
 in the crucible of searching inquiry. If our German had 
 ignored all that the masters of philology have proved on these 
 subjects, his countrymen would have raised a storm of ridi- 
 cule, at which he nmst have drowned himself in the Neckar. 
 
 " Great then is Baron Bunsen's merit, in accepting frankly 
 the belief of scholars, and yet not despairing of Hebrew pro- 
 phecy as a witness to the kingdom of God. The way of doing 
 so left open to him, was to show, pervading the Prophets, those 
 deep truths which lie at the heart of Christianity, and to 
 trace the growth of such ideas, the belief in a righteous God, 
 and the nearness of man to God, the power of prayer, and the 
 victory of self-sacrificing patience, ever expanding in men's 
 hearts, until the fulness of time came, and the ideal of the 
 Divine thought was fulfilled in the Son of Man. Such 
 accordingly is the course our author pursues, not with the
 
 — 188 — 
 
 critical finisli of Ewald, but with largo moral grasp. Why he 
 should add to his moral and metaphysical basis of prophecy, a 
 notion of foresight by vision of particulars, or a kind of 
 clairvoyance, though he admits it to be a natural gift, con- 
 sistent with fallibility, is not so easy to explain. One would 
 wish he might have intended only the power of seeing the 
 ideal in the actual, or of tracing the Divine Government in the 
 movements of men. He seems to mean more than presenti- 
 ment or sagacity ; and this element in his system requires 
 proof. 
 
 " The most brilliant portion of the prophetical essays is the 
 treatment of the later Isaiah. With the insertion of four 
 chapters concerning Ilezekiah from the histories of the kings, 
 the words and deeds of the elder Isaiah apparently close. It 
 does not follow that all the prophecies arranged earlier in the 
 book are from his lips ; probably they are not ; but it is clear 
 to demonstration, that the later chapters (xl., &c.) are upon 
 the stooping of Nebo, and the bowing down of Babylon, when 
 the Lord took out of the hand of Jerusalem the cup of trem- 
 bling ; for the glad tidings of the decree of return were heard 
 upon the mountains ; and the people went forth, not with 
 haste, or flight, for their God went before them, and was their 
 rereward (ch. lii.). So they went forth with joy, and were 
 led forth with peace (ch. liv.). So the arm of the Lord was 
 laid bare, and his servant who had foretold it was now counted 
 wise, though none had believed his report. We cannot take 
 a portion out of this continuous song, and by dividing it as a 
 chapter, separate its primary meaning from what precedes and 
 follows. The servant in chapters lii. and liii. must have rela- 
 tion to the servant in chapters xlii. and xlix. Who was this 
 servant, that had foretold the exile and the return, and had 
 been a man of grief, rejected of his people, imprisoned and 
 treated as a malefactor? The oldest Jewish tradition, preserved 
 in Origen, and to be inferred from Justin, said the chosen 
 people — in opposition to heathen oppressors — an opinion which 
 suits ch. xlix., ver. 3. Nor is the later exposition of the 
 Targum altogether at variance ; for though Jonathan speaks 
 of the Messiah, it is in the character of a Judaic deliverer : 
 and his expressions about ' the holy people's being mtdtiplied,'' and 
 seeing their sanctuary rebuilt, especially when he calls the 
 holy people a remnant, may be fragments of a tradition older 
 than his time. It is idle, with Pearson, to quote Jonathan as 
 a witness to the Christian interpretation, unless his conception 
 of the Messiah were ours. But the idea of the Anointed One,
 
 — 189 — 
 
 which in some of the Psalms belongs to Israel, shifted from 
 time to time, being applied now to people, and now to king or 
 prophet, until at length it assumed a sterner form, as the 
 Jewish spirit was hardened by persecutions into a more vin- 
 dicative hope. The first Jewish expositor who loosened, with- 
 out breaking Rabbinical fetters, R. Saadiah, in the 9th cen- 
 tury, named Jeremiah as the man of grief, and emphatically 
 the prophet of the return, rejected of his people. Grotius, 
 with his usual sagacity, divined the same clue ; though 
 Michaelis says upon \t, pessime Grotius. Baron Bunsen puts 
 together, with masterly analysis, the illustrative passages of 
 Jeremiah ; and it is difficult to resist the conclusion to which 
 they tend. Jeremiah compares his whole people to sheep 
 going astray, and himself to ' a lamb or an ox, brought to the 
 slaughter.' He was taken from prison ; and his generation, or 
 posterity, none took account of; he interceded for his people 
 in prayer : but was not the less despised, and a man of grief, 
 so that no sorrow was like his ; men assigned his grave with 
 the wicked, and his tomb with the oppressors ; all who fol- 
 lowed him seemed cut off out of the land of the living, yet his 
 seed prolonged their days ; his prophecy was fulfilled, and the 
 arm of the Eternal laid bare ; he was counted wise on the 
 return ; his place in the book of Sirach shows how eminently 
 he was enshrined in men's thoughts as the servant of God ; 
 and in the book of Maccabees he is the gray prophet, who is 
 seen in vision, fulfilling his task of interceding for the 
 people. 
 
 " This is an imperfect sketch, but may lead readers to con- 
 sider the arguments for applying Isaiah lii. and liii. to Jere- 
 miah. Their weight (in the master's hands) is so great, that 
 if any single person should be selected, they prove Jeremiah 
 should be the one. Nor are they a slight illustration of the 
 historical sense of that famous chapter, which in the original 
 is a history. Still the general analogy of the Old Testament 
 which makes collective Israel, or the prophetic remnant, espe- 
 cially the servant of Jehovah, and the comparison of ch. xlii., 
 xlix. may permit us to think the oldest interpretation the truest ; 
 with only this admission, that the figure of Jeremiah stood 
 forth amongst the Prophets, and tinged the delineation of the 
 true Israel, that is, the faithful remnant who had been disbe- 
 lieved — ^just as the figure of Laud or Hammond might repre- 
 sent the Caroline Church in the eyes of her poet. 
 
 " If this seems but a compromise, it may be justified by
 
 — 190 — 
 
 Ewald's phrase, ' Die icenigeii Treuen im Exile^ Jeremjah und 
 Andre.' thouirh lie makes the servant idealized Israel." 
 
 " If any sincere Christian now asks, is not then our Saviour 
 spoken of in Isaiah ? h-t him open liis New Testament, and ask 
 therewith John the Baptist, whether he was Elias ? If he 
 finds the Baptist answering / am not^ yet our Lord testifies 
 that in spirit and power this was Elias ; a little reflexion will 
 show how the historical representation in Isaiah liii. is of some 
 suflbrino; prophet or remnant, yet the truth and patience, tlie 
 grief and triumph, have their higliest fulfihnent in Him wlio 
 said, ' Father, not my will, hut thine.' But we nmst not 
 distort the prophets, to prove the Divine WORD incarnate, 
 and then from the incarnation reason back to the sense of 
 prophecy." 
 
 And we article and object to you, the said Reverend Row- 
 land Williams, that in the passage hereinbefore recited, being 
 portions of the said Article, Essay, or Review, you did 
 advisedly maintain or affirm, that in the books of the Old 
 Testament, there is, with the possible exception of one, two, 
 or three doubtful passages, no element of divinely inspired 
 prediction or prognostication of future persons or events ; or 
 that you did therein advisedly maintain and affirm, such a doc- 
 trine, position, or opinion, and that the same is contrary to, 
 and inconsistent with, the 6th and 7th of the said Articles of 
 Religion, and that portion of the Nicene Creed which declares 
 in substance that the Holy Ghost spake by the Prophets, and 
 contrary to, and inconsistent with, the teaching of the said 
 Church as contained in that portion of the Holy Scripture 
 appointed in the said book of Common Prayer, to be read as 
 the Gospel for the Monday in Easter week, which is in the 
 words and figures following, to wit : — " The Gospel. St. Luke 
 xxiv. 18. — BEHOLD, two of his disciples went that same 
 day to a village called Emmaus, whicli was from Jerusalem 
 about threescore furlongs. And they talked together of all 
 these things which had happened. And it came to pass, that 
 while they communed together, and reasoned, Jesus himself 
 drew near, and went with them. But their eyes were holden, 
 that they should not know him. And he said unto them, 
 What manner of communications are these that ye have one 
 to another, as ye walk, and are sad ? And the one of them, 
 whose name was Cleophas, answering, said unto liim. Art thou 
 only a stranger in Jerusalem, and hast not known the things 
 which are come to pass therein these days ? And he said
 
 — J91 — 
 
 unto them, What things ? And they said unto him, Concern- 
 ing Jesus of Nazareth, who was a prophet mighty in deed and 
 word, before God and all the people : And how the chief 
 priests and our rulers delivered him to be condemned to death, 
 and have crucified him. But we trusted that it had been he 
 which should have redeemed Israel: and besides all this, 
 to-day is the third day since these things were done. Yea, 
 and certain women also of our company made us astonished, 
 which were early at the sepulchre ; and when they found not 
 his body, they came, saying, that they had also seen a vision 
 of angeis, which said that he was alive. And certain of them 
 which were with us went to the sepulchre, and found it even 
 so as the women had said : but him they saw not. Then he 
 said unto them, O fools, and slow of heart to believe all that 
 the prophets have spoken : ought not Christ to have suffered 
 these things, and to enter into his glory ? And beginning at 
 Moses, and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all 
 the Scriptures the things concerning himself And they drew 
 nigh unto the village whither they went ; and he made as 
 though he would have gone further ; but they constrained 
 him, saying. Abide with us, for it is towards evening, and the 
 day is far spent. And he went in to tarry with them. And 
 it came to pass, as he sat at meat with them, he took bread, 
 and blessed it, and brake, and gave to them. And their eyes 
 were opened, and they knew him, and he vanished out of 
 their sight. And they said one to another. Did not our heart 
 burn within us, while he talked with us by the way, and while 
 he opened to us the Scriptures ? And they rose up the same 
 hour, and returned to Jerusalem, and found the eleven gathered 
 together and them that were with them., saying. The Lord is 
 risen indeed, and hath appeared to Simon. And they told 
 what things were done in the way, and how he was known of 
 them in breaking of bread." And as contained in those por- 
 tions of Holy Scripture appointed in the said Book of Com- 
 mon Prayer to be read as the Epistle and Gospel for the 
 Tuesday in Easter Week, in the words and figures following, 
 to wit :— " For the Epistle. Acts xiii, 26. MEN and bre- 
 thren, children of the stock of Abraham, and whosoever 
 among you feareth God, to you is the word of this salvation 
 sent. For they that dwell at Jerusalem, and their rulers, 
 because they knew him not, nor yet the voices of the prophets 
 which are read every sabbath-day, they have fulfilled them in 
 condemning him. And though they found no cause of death 
 in him, yet desired they Pilate that he should be slain. And 
 when they had fulfilled all that was written of him, they took
 
 — 192 — 
 
 liim down from the tree, and laid him in a sepulchre. But 
 God raised him from tlio dead : and he was seen many days 
 of them which came up with him from Galilee to Jerusalem, 
 who are his witnesses unto the people. And we declare unto you 
 glad tidings, how that the promise which was made unto the 
 fathers, God hath fulfilled the same unto us their children, in 
 that he hath raised up Jesus again ; as it is also written in the 
 second Psalm, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten 
 thee. And as concerning that he raised him up from the 
 dead, now no more to return to corruption, he said on this 
 wise, I will give you the sure mercies of David. Wherefore 
 he saith also in another Psalm, Thou shalt not suffer thine 
 Holy One to see corruption. For David, after he had served 
 his own generation by the will of God, fell on sleep, and was 
 laid unto his fathers, and saw corruption : but he whom God 
 raised again saw no corruption. Be it known unto to you 
 therefore, men and brethren, that through this man is preached 
 unto you the forgiveness of sins ; And by him all that believe 
 are justified from all things, from which ye could not be justi- 
 fied by the law of Moses. Beware therefore, lest that come 
 upon you which is spoken of in the prophets ; Behold, ye 
 despisers, and wonder, and perish ; for I work a work in your 
 days, a work which ye shall in no wise believe, though a man 
 declare it unto you. 
 
 " The Gospel. St. Luke xxiv. ^^. JESUS himself stood 
 in the midst of them, and saith unto them. Peace be unto you. 
 But they were terrified and affrighted, and supposed that they 
 had seen a spirit. And he said unto them. Why are ye trou- 
 bled, and why do thoughts arise in your hearts ? Behold my 
 hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see ; 
 for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have. And 
 when he had thus spoken, he shewed them his hands and his 
 feet. And while they yet believed not for joy, and wondered, 
 he said unto them, Have ye here any meat ? And they gave 
 him a piece of a broiled fish, and of an honey-comb. And he 
 took it, and did eat before them. And he said unto them. 
 These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet 
 with you, that all things must be fulfilled which were written 
 in the law of Moses, and in the Prophets, and in the Psalms 
 concerning me. Then opened he their understanding, that 
 that they might understand the Scriptures, and said unto 
 them, Q''hus it is written, and thus it behoved Christ to suffer, 
 and to rise from the dead the third day ; and that repentance 
 and remission of sins should be preached in his Name among
 
 ~ 193 ~ 
 
 all nations, beginning at Jerusalem. And ye are witnesses of 
 these things." And as contained in those portions of Holy- 
 Scripture appointed in the said Book of Common Prayer to be 
 read as the Gospel for Grood Friday, as the Gospel for the 
 First Sunday after Christmas, as the first proper Lesson for 
 the Morning Service on Christmas Day, as the first proper 
 Lesson for the Evening service on Cliristmas Day, as the 
 proper Lessons on the Sundays of Advent, and the Sundays 
 after Epiphany, and as the first proper Lesson for the 
 Evening Service of Good Friday. And this was and is true, 
 and article and object as before. 
 
 Ninth. And we further article and object to you, the 
 Reverend Rowland Williams, that in the said Article, Essay, 
 or Review, are contained the following passages, that is to say 
 at pages 76 and 77 : — 
 
 " In distinguishing the man Daniel from our book of Daniel, 
 and in bringing the latter as low as the reign of Epiphanes, 
 our author only follows the admitted necessities of the case." 
 
 " The truth seems, that starting like many a patriot bard of 
 our own, from a name traditionally sacred, the writer used it 
 with no deceptive intention, as a dramatic form which digni- 
 fied his encouragement of his countrymen in their great 
 struggle against Antiochus. The original place of the book, 
 amongst the later Hagiographa of the Jewish canon, and the 
 absence of any mention of it by the son of Siracli, strikingly 
 confirm this view of its origin ; and if some obscurity rests 
 upon details, the general conclusion, that the book contains no 
 predictions, except by analogy and type, can hardly be gain- 
 said. But it may not the less, with some of the latest Psalms, 
 have nerved the men of Israel, when they turned to flight the 
 armies of the aliens ; and it suggests, in the godless invader, 
 no slight forecast of Caligula again invading the Temple with 
 like abomination, as well as of whatever exalts itself against 
 faith and conscience, to the end of the world. It is time for 
 divines to recognize these tilings, since, with their opportuni- 
 ties of study, the current error is as discreditable to them, as 
 for the well-meaning crowd, who are taught to identify it with 
 their creed, it is a matter of grave compassion. 
 
 " It provokes a smile on serious topics to observe the zeal 
 with which our critic vindicates the personality of Jonah, and 
 the originality of his hymn (the latter being generally thought 
 

 
 — 194 — 
 
 doubtful), while lie proceeds to explain that the narrative of 
 our book, in which, the hymn is imbedded, contains a late 
 legend, founded on misconception. One can imagine the 
 cheers which the opening of such an essay might evoke in 
 some of our own circles, changing into indignation as the dis- 
 tinguished foreigner developed his views. After this he might 
 speak more gently of mythical theories." 
 
 And we article and object to you, the said Reverend Row- 
 land Williams, that in the passages hereinbefore recited, being- 
 portions of the said Article, Essay, or Review, you did 
 advisedly maintain and affirm. That the Prophet Jonah was not 
 a real historical person, and that the canonical Book, written 
 by him and incorporated in the Old Testament, was not really 
 written by him, and has not any authority binding upon the 
 Church, and that the Book of Daniel was not the work of the 
 Prophet Daniel, but of some other person, and is not an autho- 
 rity binding on the Church, or that you did therein advisedly 
 maintain or affirm a doctrine, position, or opinion, to that or 
 the like purport or effect, and that such doctrine, position, or 
 opinion, is contrary to, or inconsistent with, the 6th of the said 
 Articles of Religion, and contrary to, or inconsistent with, the 
 teaching of the said church, as contained in the form and 
 manner of making Deacons in the following question and 
 answer, to wit : " The Bishop, — Do you unfeignedly believe all 
 the Canonical Scriptures of the Old and New Testament ? 
 Answer, — I do believe them." And this was and is true, and 
 we article and object as before. 
 
 Tenth. And we further article and object to you, the said 
 Reverend Rowland Williams, that in the said article, Essay 
 or Review, is contained the following passage, that is to say,- 
 at pages 83, 84, 85, and a note, numbered (3), at the foot of 
 page 84. 
 
 " Our author then believes St. Paul, because he understands 
 him reasonably. Nor does his acceptance of Chrisfs redemp- 
 tion from evil bind him to repeat traditional fictions about our 
 canon, or to read its pages with that dulness which turns 
 symbol and poetry into materialism. On the side of history 
 lies the strength of his genius. His treatment of the New 
 Testament is not very unlike the acute criticism of De Wette, 
 tempered by the affectionateness of Neander. He finds in the 
 first three gospels divergent forms of the tradition, once oral, 
 and perhaps catechetical, in the congregations of the apostles.
 
 — 195 — 
 
 He thus explains the numerous traces characteristic of a tradi- 
 tional narrative. He does not ascribe the quadruple division 
 of record to the four churches of Jerusalem, Rome, Antioch, 
 and Alexandria, on the same principle as liturgical families 
 are traced ; but he requires time enouoh for some develope- 
 ment, and for the passing? of some symbol into story. Jij 
 making- the fourth gospel the latest of all our genuine books, 
 he accounts for its style (so much more Greek than the Apoca- 
 lypse), and explains many passages. The verse, ' And no man 
 hath ascended up to Heaven, but he that came down,' is intel- 
 ligible as a free comment near the end of the first century ; 
 but has no meaning in our Lord's mouth at a time when the 
 ascension had not been heard of. So the Apocalypse, if taken 
 as a series of poetical visions, which represent the outpouring of 
 the vials of wrath upon the city where the Lord was slain, 
 ceases to be a riddle. Its horizon answers to that of Jerusa- 
 lem already threatened by the legions of Vaspasian, and its 
 language is partly adapted from the older prophets, partly a 
 repetition of our Lord's warnings as described by the Evange- 
 lists, or as deepened into wilder threatenings in the mouth of 
 the later Jesus, the son of Ananus. The epistle to the He- 
 brews, so different in its conception of faith, and in its Alexan- 
 drine rhythm, from the doctrine and the language of St. Paul's 
 known Epistles, has its degree of discrepance explained by 
 ascribing it to some-'' companion of the apostles ; and minute 
 reasons are found for fixing with probability on Apollos. The 
 second of the Petrine Epistles, having alike external and 
 internal evidence against its genuineness, is necessarily sur- 
 rendered as a whole ; and our critic's good faith in this respect 
 is more certain than the ingenuity with which he reconstructs 
 a part of it. The second chapter may not improbably be a 
 quotation ; but its quoter, and the author of the rest of the 
 epistle, need not therefore have been St. Peter." 
 
 And we article and object to you, the said Reverend Row- 
 land Williams, that in the passage hereinbefore recited, being 
 a portion of the said Article, Essay, or Review, you did 
 advisedly maintain and affirm, the doctrine, position, or 
 opinion, that the portion of Holy Scripture usually called the 
 Revelation of St. John the Divine, the Epistle usually called 
 the Epistle to the Hebrews, and the Epistle usually called the 
 Epistle of St. Peter, are not respectively parts of Holy Scrip- 
 
 " * In my own judgment, the Epistle bears traces of being post-a^os- 
 tolic. ii. 3; iii. 14; x. 25-32; xiii. 7, 8." 
 
 02
 
 — 106 — 
 
 ture, whose authority is biudiiio- upon the Church, or that you 
 did thereiu advisedly maintain or affirm, a doctrine, position, 
 or opinion, to that or the like purport or effect, and that such 
 doctrine, position, or opinion, is contrarj'^ to, or inconsistent 
 with, tlie (Jth of said Articles of Religion, and contrary to, or 
 inconsistent with, the teaching of the said Church, as contained 
 in the portion of Holy Scripture appointed by the said IJook 
 of Common Prayer, to be read for the Epistle on All Saints 
 day ; and in the words and figures fallowing, to wit : — " For 
 the Epistle. Revelations vii. 2. And I saw another angel 
 ascending from the east, having the seal of the living God ; 
 and he cried with a loud voice to the four angels, to whom it 
 was given to hurt the earth, and the sea, saying. Hurt not the 
 earth, neither the sea, nor the trees, till we have sealed the 
 servants of our God in their foreheads. And I heard the 
 number of them which were sealed ; and there were sealed an 
 hundred and forty and four thousand, of all the tribes of the 
 children of Israel. Of the tribe of Judah were sealed twelve 
 thousand. Of the tribe of Reuben were sealed twelve thou- 
 sand. Of tlie tribe of Gad were sealed twelve thousand. Of 
 the tribe of Aser were sealed twelve thousand. Of the tribe 
 of Nepthali were sealed twelve thousand. Of the tribe of 
 Manasses were sealed twelve thousand. Of the tribe of Simeon 
 were sealed twelve thousand. Of the tribe of Levi were sealed 
 twelve thousand. Of the tribe of Issachar were sealed twelve 
 thousand. Of the tribe of Zabulon were sealed twelve thou- 
 sand. Of the tribe of Joseph were sealed twelve thousand. 
 Of the tribe of Benjamin were sealed twelve thousand. After 
 this I beheld, and lo, a great multitude, which no man could 
 number, of all nations, and kindreds, and people, and tongues, 
 stood before the throne, and before the Lamb, clothed with 
 white robes, and palms in their hands ; and cried with a loud 
 voice, saying, Salvation to our God which sitteth upon the 
 throne, and unto the Lamb. And all the angels stood round 
 about the throne, and about the elders, and the four beasts, 
 and fell before the throne on their faces, and worshipped God, 
 saying. Amen ; Blessing, and glory, and wisdom, and thanks- 
 giving, and honour, and power, and might, be unto our God 
 for ever and ever. Amen." and contrary to, or inconsistent 
 with, the teaching of the said church, as contained in the form 
 and manner of making deacons, in the following question and 
 answer, to wit : — " The Bishop — Do you unfeignedly believe 
 all the Canonical Scriptures of the Old and New Testament ? 
 Answer — I do believe them." And this w^as and is true, and 
 we article and object as before.
 
 — 197 — 
 
 Eleventh. And we further article and object to you, the 
 said Reverend Rowland Williams, that in the said Article, 
 Essay, or Review, are contained the following passages, that is 
 to s&y, at pages 56, 59, and 61, 
 
 " Our deluge takes its place among geological phenomena, no 
 longer a disturbance of law from which science shrinks, but a 
 prolonged play of the forces of fire and water, rendering the 
 primeval regions of North Asia uninhabitable, and urging the 
 nations to new abodes. We learn approximately its antiquity, 
 and infer limitation in its ranoe, from fiudino- it recorded in the 
 traditions of Iran and Palestine (or of Japhet and Shem), but 
 unknown to the Egyptians and Mongolians, who left earlier 
 the cradle of mankind. In the half ideal half traditional 
 notices of the beginnings of our race, compiled in Genesis, we 
 are bid notice the combination of documents, and the recur- 
 rence of barely consistent genealogies.''"' 
 
 " Baron Bunsen notices the ' high hand ' with which Jeho- 
 vah led forth his people, the spoiling of the Egyptians, and 
 the lingering in the peninsula, as signs, even in the Bible, of a 
 struggle conducted by human means. Thus, as the pestilence 
 of the Book of Kings becomes in Chronicles the more visible 
 angel, so the avenger who slew the firstborn may have been 
 the J^edouin host, akin nearly to Jethro, and more remotely to 
 Israel. 
 
 " So in the passage of the Red Sea, the description may be 
 interpreted with the latitude of poetry : though as it is not 
 affirmed that Pharoah was drowned, it is no serious objection 
 that Egyptian authorities continue the reign of Menephthah 
 later. A greater difficulty is that we find but three centuries 
 thus left us from the Exodus to Solomon's Temple. Yet less 
 stress will be laid on this by whoever notices how the numbers 
 in the Book of Judges proceed by the eastern round number 
 of forty, what traces the whole book bears of embodying his- 
 tory in its most popular form, and how naturally St. Paul or 
 St. Stephen would speak after received accounts." 
 
 " When the fierce ritual of Syria, with the awe of a divine 
 voice, bade Abraham slay his son, he did not reflect that he 
 had no perfect theory of the absolute to justify him in depart- 
 ing from traditional revelation, but trusted that the Father, 
 whose voice from heaven he heard at heart, was better pleased 
 with mercy than with sacrifice ; and his trust was his right-
 
 — 198 — 
 
 eousness. Its seed was sown from heaven, but it grew in the 
 soil of an honest and good heart. So in each case we trace 
 principles of reason and right, to which our heart perpetually 
 responds, and our response to which is a truer sign of faith 
 than such deference to a supposed external authority as would 
 quench these principles themselves." And we further article 
 and object to you, the said Reverend Rowland Williams, that 
 in the passages hereinbefore recited, being portions of the said 
 Article, Essay, or Review, you did advisedly maintain and affirm 
 that the statements of Holy Scripture as to historical facts may 
 be read and understood in a wholly figurative sense, and in a 
 non-natural sense, of the plain words and purport thereof, or 
 that you did therein advisedly maintain or affirm a doctrine, 
 position, or opinion, to that or the like purport or eifect, and 
 that such doctrine, position, or opinion, is contrary to, or in- 
 consistent with, the 6th and 7th of the said articles of the 
 Church, and contrary to and inconsistent with the teaching of 
 the said Church, as contained in that portion of Holy Scrip- 
 ture appointed by the Book of Common Prayer as the proper 
 lesson for the Evening Service for the First Sunday in Lent, 
 to wit, — the 22nd cap. of the First Book of Moses, called 
 Genesis, and to that portion of Holy Scripture appointed by 
 the Book of Common Prayer as the second proper lesson for 
 the Morning Service on All Saints Day, to wit, — from verse 
 33 of the 11th chapter of the Epistle to the Hebrews, to the 
 7th verse of 12th chapter of the Epistle to the Hebrews, and con- 
 trary to or inconsistent with the teaching of the said Church, 
 as contained in the form and manner of making Deacons, in 
 the following question and answer, to wit, " The Bishop, — Do 
 you unfeignedly believe all the Canonical Scriptures of the 
 Old and New Testament ? Answer, — I do believe them."" 
 And this was and is true, and we article and object as before. 
 
 Twelfth. And we further article and object to you, the said 
 Reverend Rowland Williams that in the said article. Essay or 
 Review, is contained the following passages at pages 81 and 87, 
 " Propitiation would be the recovery of that Peace, which can- 
 not be, wdiile Sin divides us from the Searcher of Hearts." 
 
 " Salvation from evil through sharing the Saviour's spirit, 
 was shifted into a notion of purchase from Grod, through the 
 price of his bodily pangs. The deep drama of heart and mind 
 became externalized into a commercial transfer, and this 
 effected by a form of ritual." 
 
 And we article and object to you, the said Reverend Row-
 
 — 199 — 
 
 land Williams, that in the passage hereinbefore recited, being 
 portions of the said article Essay or Review, you did advisedly 
 maintain and affirm, that Christ did not suffer, nor was cruci- 
 fied, dead, and buried, to reconcile his Father to us, nor to be 
 a sacrifice for the original guilt, as well as for the actual sins 
 of men. That the offering of Christ is not the perfect redemp- 
 tion, propitiation, and satisfaction for the sins of the whole 
 world, botii original and actual ; or that you did therein ad- 
 visedly maintain and affirm a doctrine, position, or opinion to 
 that, or the like purport and effect, and that such doctrine, 
 position, or opinion is contrary to or inconsistent with the 
 2nd and 81st of the said Articles of Religion, and contrary to 
 and inconsistent with the teaching of the said Church, as con- 
 tained in the Prayer of Consecration in the order of adminis- 
 tration of the Lord's Supper or Holy Communion, which is in 
 the words following, to wit : — " ^j When the Priest, standing 
 before the Table, hath so ordered the Bread and Wine, that he 
 may icith the more readiness and decency break the Bread before 
 the people, and tahe the Cup into his hands, he shall say the 
 Prayer of Consecration, as followeth. ALMIGHTY God, 
 our heavenly Father, who of thy tender mercy didst give thine 
 only Son Jesus Christ to suffer death upon the Cross for our 
 redemption ; who made there (by his one oblation of himself 
 once offered) a full, perfect, and sufficient sacrifice, oblation, 
 and satisfjxction, for the sins of the whole world; and did in- 
 stitute, and in his holy Gospel command us to continue, a 
 perpetual memory of that his precious death, until his coming 
 again ; Hear us, O merciful Father, we most humbly beseech 
 thee; and grant that we receiving these thy creatures of bread 
 and wine, according to thy Son, our Saviour Jesus Christ's 
 holy institution, in remembrance of his death and passion, 
 may be partakers of his most blessed Body and Blood : who, 
 * Here the Priest is to tahe in the samc uiglit that he was betrayed,* 
 
 the Paten into his hands : ,i-r» i ^ i iii- 
 
 t And here to break the took Bread ; and, when lie had given 
 
 ^T^nd here to lay his hand thauks, fbe brake it, and gave it to his 
 
 "'^J^^ZLtheCup disciples saying. Take eat, +this is my 
 
 into his hands : Bodv whicli IS givcn for you : Uo this 
 
 6 And here to lay his hand • " i r> t "1 • i'i. „ 
 
 uponevery vessel (be it cha- m remembrance of me. Likewise after 
 tt;«L„f^:'Aotct;' s^n^per he Ijtook the Cup; and when he 
 crated. had givcu tliauks, he gave it to them, say- 
 
 ing, Drink ye all of this ; for this§ is my Blood of the New 
 Testament, which is shed for you and for many for the remis- 
 sion of sins : Do this, as oft as ye shall drink it, in remem- 
 brance of mo. Amen." And this was and is true, and we 
 article and object as before.
 
 — 200 — 
 
 Tliirteenth. And we further article and object to you, the 
 said lleverend Rowland Williams, that in tlio said article, 
 Essay, or Review, is contained the foUowinn; passa^je, at page 
 86. "The first Christians held that the heart was purified 
 by faith ; the accompanying symbol, water, became by degrees 
 tiio instrument of purification. Holy Baptism was at first 
 })receded by a vow, in which the young soldier expressed his 
 consciousness of spiritual truth ; but when it became twisted 
 into a false analogy with circumcision, the rite degenerated 
 into a magical fonn, and the Augustiniau notion of a curse in- 
 herited by infants, was developed in connexion with it," 
 
 And we article and object to you, the said Reverend Row- 
 land Williams, that in the passage hereinbefore recited, being 
 portions of the said Article, Essay, or Review, you did ad- 
 visedly maintain and affirm, that the element of water is not a 
 divinely ordained means whereby we receive the spiritual 
 grace in the Sacrament of Baptism, or that you did advisedly 
 maintain and affirm a doctrine, position, or opinion, to that or 
 the like purport or effect, and that such doctrine, position, or 
 opinion, is contrary to. or inconsistent with, the 27th of the 
 said articles of religion, and is contrary to, or inconsistent 
 with, the teaching of the said Church, as contained in the fol- 
 lowing passages of the Church Catechism, as set forth in the 
 Book of Common Prayer, to wit: — Question. — "HOW many 
 sacraments hath Christ ordained in his Church? Answer. — 
 Two only, as generally necessary to salvation, that is to say, 
 Baptism, and the Supper of the Lord. Question. — What 
 meanest thou by this word Sacrament? Answer. — I mean an 
 outward and visible sign of an inward and spiritual grace 
 given unto us, ordained by Christ himself, as a means whereby 
 we receive the same, and a pledge to assure us thereof. Ques- 
 tion. — How many parts are there in a Sacrament? Answer. 
 — Two ; the outward visible sign, and the inward spiritual 
 grace. Question. — What is the outward visible sign or form 
 in Baptism? Answer. — Water ; wherein the person is baptized 
 In the name of the Father., and of the Son, and of the Holy 
 Ghost. Question. — What is the inward and spiritual grace? 
 Answer. — A death unto sin, and a new birth unto righteous- 
 ness : for being by nature born in sin, and the children of 
 wrath, we are hereby made the children of grace." And that 
 you did therein advisedly maintain and affirm, that St. 
 Augustine falsely introduced the notion of original sin attach- 
 ing to every person born into this world, and deserving God''s 
 wrath and damnation, or that you did therein advisedly main-
 
 — 201 — 
 
 tain and affirm a doctrine, position, or opinion, to that or the 
 like purport and effect, such doctrine, position, or opinion, 
 being contrary to, and inconsistent with, the 9th of the said 
 Articles of lleligion, and contrary to, and inconsistent with, 
 the teaching of the said Church, as contained in the " Minis- 
 tration of Public Baptism of Infants, to be used in the 
 Church." And this was and is true, and we article and 
 object as before. 
 
 Fourteenth. And we further article and object to you, the 
 said Reverend Rowland Williams, that in the said Article, 
 Essay, or Review, is contained the following passage at page 
 82. " Thus the incarnation becomes with our Author as 
 purely spiritual as it was with St. Paul, the Son of David by 
 birth, is the Son of God by the Spirit of holiness." And we 
 article and object to you, the said Reverend Rowland Wil- 
 liams, that in the passage hereinbefore recited', being a portion 
 of the said Article, Essay, or Review, you did advisedly main- 
 tain and affirm, that the incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ 
 was purely spiritual, and that the Son of God did not take 
 man's nature in the womb of the blessed Virgin, or that you 
 did therein advisedly maintain and affirm a doctrine, position, 
 or opinion, to that or the like purport and effect, and that such 
 doctrine, position, or opinion, is contrary to, or inconsistent 
 with, the 2nd of the said articles of religion. And this was 
 and is true, and we article and object as before. 
 
 Fifteenth. And we further article and object to you, the 
 said Reverend Rowland Williams, that in the said article. 
 Essay or Review, is contained the following passage, at pages 
 80, 8], in the words following, to wit, " For though he 
 embraces with more than orthodox warmth. New Testament 
 terms, he explains them in such a way that he may be charged 
 with using evangelical language, in a philosophical sense. But 
 in reply, he would ask, what proof is there that the reason- 
 able sense of St. Paul's words was not the one which the 
 Apostle intended ? Why may not justification by faith have 
 meant the peace of mind, or sense of Divine approval, which 
 comes of trust in a righteous God, rather than a fiction of 
 merit by transfer I St. Paul would then be teaching moral 
 responsibility, as opposed to sacerdotalism ; or, that to obey, 
 is better than sacrifice. Faith would be opposed, not to the 
 good deeds which conscience requires, but to works of ap- 
 peasement by ritual justification, would be neither an arbi- 
 trary ground of confidence, nor a reward upon condition of
 
 — 202 — 
 
 our disclaiming merit, but rather a verdict of forgiveness 
 upon our repentance, and of acceptance upon the offering of 
 our hearts." 
 
 And we article and object to you, the said Reverend 
 Rowland Williams, that in the passage hereinbefore recited, 
 being portion of the said article, Essay or Review, you did 
 advisedly maintain and affirm, that Justification by Faith 
 means only the peace of mind, or sense of Divine approval, 
 which comes of trust in a righteous God, and that justification 
 is a verdict of forgiveness upon our repentance, and of accept- 
 ance upon the offering of our hearts ; or, that you did therein 
 advisedly maintain and affirm, a doctrine, position, or opinion, 
 to that or the like purport or effect, and that such doctrine, 
 position, or opinion, is contrary to, or inconsistent with, the 
 11th of the said Articles of Religion. And this was and is 
 true, and we article and object as before. 
 
 Sixteenth. And we further article and object to you, the 
 said Reverend Rowland Williams, that the said Article, 
 Essay, or Review, concludes with the following passages, at 
 p. 92 and 93. 
 
 " So, when he asks : ' How long we shall bear this fiction 
 of an external revelation,' — that is, of one violating the heart 
 and conscience, instead of expressing itself through them — or 
 when he says, ' All this is delusion for those who believe it ; 
 but what is it in the mouths of those who teach it V — or when 
 he exclaims, ' Oh the fools ! who, if they do see the imminent 
 perils of this age, think to ward them off by narrow-minded 
 persecution !' and when he repeats, ' Is it not time, in truth, 
 to withdraw the veil from our misery ? to tear off the mask 
 from hypocrisy, and destroy that sham which is undermining 
 all real ground under our feet? to point out the dangers which 
 surround, nay, threaten already to engulf us V — there will be 
 some who think his lancjuao-e too vehement for good taste. 
 Others will think burning words needed by the disease of 
 our time. These will not quarrel on points of taste with a 
 man who in our darkest perplexity has reared again the ban- 
 ner of truth, and uttered thoughts which give courage to the 
 weak, and sight to the blind. If Protestant Europe is to 
 escape those shadows of the twelfth century, which with 
 ominous recurrence are closing around us, to Baron Bunsen 
 will belong a foremost place among the champions of light and 
 right. Any points disputable or partially erroneous, which
 
 — 203 — 
 
 may be discovered in his many works, are as dust in the 
 balance, compared with the mass of sohd learning, and the 
 elevating influence of a noble and Christian spirit. Those who 
 have assailed his doubtful points are equally opposed to his 
 strong ones. Our own testimony is, where we have been best 
 able to follow him, we have generally found most reason to 
 agree with him. But our little survey has not traversed his 
 vast field, nor our plummet sounded his depth." 
 
 " Bunsen, with voice, like sound of trumpet born, 
 
 Conscious of strength, and confidently bold, 
 Well feign the sons of Loyola the scorn 
 
 Which trom thy books would scare their startled fold — 
 To thee our Earth disclosed her purple morn, 
 
 And time his long-lost centuries unrolled ; 
 Far Realms unveiled the mystery of their Tongue : 
 
 Thou all their garlands on the Cross hast hunir. 
 
 " My lips but ill could frame thy Lutheran speech, 
 
 Nor suits thy Teuton vaunt our British pride — 
 But ah ! not dead my soul to giant reach, 
 
 That envious Eld's vast interval defied ; 
 And when those fables strange, our hirelings teach, 
 
 I saw by genuine learning cast aside. 
 Even like Linnaeus kneeling on the sod, 
 
 For faith from falsehood severed, thank I GOD." 
 
 And we article and object to you, the said Reverend 
 Rowland Williams, that in and by the passage hereinbefore 
 recited, being a portion of the said Article, Essay, or Review, 
 you did advisedly approve of and adopt, and express your 
 adherence to, and assent in the substance of all the said 
 Article, Essay, or Review, as well as those parts and words, 
 of which other persons were the original writers, as those 
 written by yourself. And this was and is true, and we article 
 and object as before. 
 
 Seventeenth. And we further article and object to you, the 
 said Reverend Rowland Williams, that the manifest tendency, 
 scope, object, and design, of the whole Essay, is to inculcate 
 a disbelief in the Divine Lispiration and authority of the 
 Holy Scriptures, contained in the Old and New Testament, 
 to reduce the said Holy Scriptures to the level of a mere 
 human composition, such as the writings of Luther and of 
 Milton ; to deny that the Old Testament contains prophecies
 
 — 204 — 
 
 or pri'dictions of Our Saviour, and other persons and events ; 
 to deny that the Prophets speaking under the special inspiration 
 of the Holy Spirit, foretold human events ; to deny altogether or 
 greatly discredit, the truth and genuineness of the historical por- 
 tions of the Old Testament, and the truth and genuineness of 
 certain parts of the New Testament, and the truth and 
 reality of the miracles recorded as fiicts in the Old and INew 
 Testament ; to deny or interpret by a meaning at variance 
 with that of the Church, the Doctrines of Original Sin of 
 Infant Baptism, of Justification by Faith, Atonement, and 
 Propitiation b}-^ the death of our Saviour, and of the Incarna- 
 tion of our Saviour. And this was and is true, and we article 
 and object as before. 
 
 Eighteenth. In part supply of proof of the premises in 
 this and the preceding articles pleaded, and to all other 
 intents and purposes in the law whatsoever, we exhibit hereto, 
 annex, and will, that the same be taken and read, as if herein 
 inserted a printed copy of the said book entitled, " Essays and 
 Reviews," in which is contained the said Article, or Essay, or 
 Review, Avith divers notes thereto, entitled, " Bunsen\s Biblical 
 Researches," marked in the title page thereof with the letter 
 0. And this was and is true, and we article and object of 
 every other matter or thing in the said Article, or Essay, or 
 Review, with divers notes thereto contained, and as before. 
 
 Nineteenth. Also, we article and object to you, the said 
 Reverend Rowland Williams, that you have several times, 
 or at least once, admitted and declared that you were the 
 Author of the said Article, or Essay, or Review, with divers 
 notes thereto, entitled, " Bunsen's Biblical Researches," con- 
 tained in the said book, entitled, " Essays and Reviews," in 
 the preceding articles pleaded, and that you had caused the 
 same to be printed, published, dispersed, and set forth within 
 the said Diocese of Salisbury, and elsewhere within the said 
 Province of Canterbury. And we further article and object 
 to you, the said Reverend Rowland Williams, that one or 
 more of such printed copies of the said book, containing the 
 said Article, or Essay, or Review, with divers notes thereto, 
 have been sent or presented by you, or by your order or 
 direction, and as the Author of the said Article, or Essay, or 
 Review, with divers notes thereto, within the said Diocese of 
 Salisbury, and elsewhere within the said Province of Canter- 
 bury. And this was and is true, and we article and object as 
 before.
 
 — 205 — 
 
 Twentieth. Also, we article and 'object to you, the said 
 Reverend Rowland Williams, that you were and are an 
 ecclesiastical person, and have an ecclesiastical living and 
 preferment, to wit, — the Vicarage of Broad Chalk, with the 
 chapel of Burr Chalk, otherwise Bower Chalk, in the county 
 of Wilts, in the Diocese of Salisbury and Province of Canter- 
 bury, and that there was and is a scandal and evil report in 
 the said Diocese and elsewhere in the said Province, con- 
 cerning you, the Reverend Rowland Williams, as having been, 
 and being an ofiender against the laws ecclesiastical of this 
 realm, by having, witliin the last two years, written, printed, 
 published, dispersed, and set forth, or caused to be printed, 
 published, dispersed, and set forth, in the said book, entitled, 
 " Essays and Reviews, the said Article, or Essay, or Review, 
 with divers notes thereto, entitled, " Bunsen's Biblical 
 Researches,"* in several of the preceding articles pleaded, and 
 for having, in such Article, or Essay, or Review, and in the 
 notes thereto, advisedly maintained and affirmed certain 
 erroneous, strange, and heretical doctrines, positions, and 
 opinions, contrary and repugnant to the doctrine and teaching 
 of the said United Church of England and Ireland, as by law 
 established, and thereby contravening the statutes, constitu- 
 tions, and canons ecclesiastical of the realm, and against the 
 peace and unity of the church, and that by reason thereof, 
 and of a certain act or statute made in the parliament holden 
 at Westminster in the 3rd and 4th years of the reign of Her 
 present Majesty, Queen Victoria, entitled, " An Act for 
 better enforcing Church Discipline," and of the Letters of 
 Request under the hand and seal of the said Bishop of the 
 Diocese of Salisbury, presented and accepted in this Cause, 
 you were and are subject to the jurisdiction of this Court. 
 And this was and is true, and we article and object as 
 before. 
 
 Twenty-first. Also we article and object to you, the said 
 Reverend Rowland Williams, that it hath been and is, on the 
 part and behalf of the said Bishop of Salisbury, the voluntary 
 Promoter of our office in this cause, rightly and duly com- 
 plained to us, the Judge aforesaid, and to this Court. And 
 this was and is true, and we article and object as before. 
 
 Twenty-second. Also we article and object to you, the said 
 Reverend Rowland Williams, that all and singular the pre- 
 mises were and are true, public, and notorious, and thereof 
 there was, and is, a public voice, fame and report, of which
 
 — 206 — 
 
 legal proof beiiig made to us the Judge aforesaid, and to this 
 Court, \vc Avill that you, the Reverend Rowland Williams, be 
 duly and canonically corrected and punished, according to the 
 t^ravity of your offence, and the exigency of the law, and also 
 condennicd in the costs made, and to be made, on the part and 
 behalf of the said Bishop of Salisbury, the Promoter of our 
 office in this Cause, and compelled to the due payment thereof, 
 by our definitive 'sentence or final Interlocutory Degree, to be 
 read and promulged, made and interposed in this Cause. And 
 that it be further done and observed in the premises, as to 
 ri"-ht and justice shall appertain in this behalf, the benefit of 
 the law being always preserved. 
 
 Joseph Phillimore, 
 
 m. 0. m. swabey. 
 
 Extracted from the Registry of the Lord Bishop of Sarum. 
 
 1859. 
 
 Broad Chalk, with Bower Chalk, 
 
 and Alverdiston Chapels. 
 Vicaras:e. Institution. 
 
 On the 29th day of 
 January, in the year afore- 
 said, at Sarum, the said 
 Right Reverend Father, 
 did admit and canonically institute Rowland Williams, Clerk, 
 D.D. in and to the Vicarage and Parish Church of Broad 
 Chalk, with the Chapels of Burr Chalk and Alveston, other- 
 wise Bower Chalk and Alverdiston, in the County of Wilts, 
 and Diocese of Sarum, void by the death of Stephen Hernard 
 Hawtrey, Clerk, the last Incumbent thereof, on the presenta- 
 tion of the Reverend Richard Okes, Doctor in Divinity, Pro- 
 vost of the King's College of Blessed Mary and Saint Nicholas, 
 of Cambridge, and the Scholars of the same College, the true 
 and undoubted Patrons in full right of the said Vicarage, (as 
 it is asserted) and did invest him with all the rights, &c., 
 having first taken the Oaths of Allegiance and Supremacy 
 Simony and Canonical obedience, and subscribed the Articles,
 
 — 207 — 
 
 &c., and did commit unto him the cure &c., and mandate 
 issued to the Archdeacon of Sarum for his induction, as is the 
 custom. 
 
 FiTZ. Macdonald. 
 
 Registrar. 
 
 B. 
 
 Extracted from the Registry of the Lord Bishop of Salisbury. 
 
 At the Court at Osborne House, Isle of AVight, the 16th day 
 of April, 1861. 
 
 , ^ Present — The Queen's Most Excellent Maiestv 
 
 m (Jouncu. 
 
 WHEREAS by an Act passed in the first Session of the 
 Parliament, holden in the first and second years of the Reign 
 of Her present Majesty, intituled "An Act to abridge the 
 holding of Benefices and Plurality, and to make better provi- 
 sion for the residence of the Clergy."" After reciting that 
 "Whereas in some instances Tithings, Hamlets, Chapelries, 
 and other Places or Districts, may be separated from the 
 Parishes or Mother Churches to which they belong with great 
 advantage, and places altogether extra-parochial, may in some 
 instances, with advantage be annexed to Parishes or Districts 
 to which they are contiguous, or be constituted separate 
 Parishes for Ecclesiastical purposes." It is amongst other 
 things enacted " Then when with respect to his own Diocese, 
 it shall appear to the Archbishop of the Province, or when the 
 Bishop of any Diocese shall represent to the said Archbishop, 
 that any such Tithing, Hamlet, Chapelry, Place or District, 
 within the Diocese of such Archbishop, or the Diocese of such 
 Bishop as the case may be, may be advantageously separated 
 from any Parish or Mother Church, and either be constituted 
 a separate Benefice by itself, or be united to any other Parish 
 to which it may be more conveniently annexed, or to any other 
 adjoining Tithing, Hamlet, Chapelry, Place or District, Paro- 
 chial or extra-Parochial, so as to form a separate Parish or 
 Benefice, or that any extra-Parochial place may with advantage 
 be annexed to any Parish to which it is contiguous, or be con-
 
 — 208 — 
 
 stituted a separate Parish for Ecclesiastical purposes. And 
 the said Arcliljisliop or Bishop shall draw up a scheme in 
 writing (the sclicuic of sucli Bishop to be transmitted to the 
 said Archbishop for his consideration), describing the mode in 
 which it appears to him that the alteration may best be 
 effected, and how the changes consequent on such alteration, 
 in respect to Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction, Glebe Land, Tithes, 
 Rent charges, and other Ecclesiastical duos, rates, and pay- 
 ments, and in respect to patronage and rights to pews, may be 
 made with justice to all parties interested, and if the patron or 
 patrons of the Benefice or Benefices to be eftected by such 
 alteration, shall consent in writing under his or their hands to 
 such scheme, or to such modification thereof as the said Arch- 
 bishop may approve ; and the said Archbishop shall, on full 
 consideration and enquiry, be satisfied with any such scheme 
 or modification thereof, and shall certify the same, and such 
 consent as aforesaid by his report to Her Majesty in Council, 
 it shall be lawful for Her Majesty in Council to make an order 
 for carrying such scheme or modification thereof, as the case 
 may be, into effect." 
 
 And whereas by another Act of Parliament, passed in the 
 second and, third years of the reign of Her present Majesty, 
 intituled " An Act to make better provision for the assignment 
 of Ecclesiastical Districts to Churches or Chapels, augmented 
 by the Governors of the Bounty of Queen Anne, and for other 
 purposes." It is amongst other things farther enacted " That 
 when, by any order of Her Majesty in Council as aforesaid, a 
 separate Parish, for Ecclesiastical purposes is constituted, the 
 same, shall, on registration thereof, and with the consent in 
 writing of the incumbent or incumbents of the Benefice or Be- 
 nefices to be thereby aftected, become a Perpetual Curacy or 
 Benefice, and the Minister thereof duly nominated and licensed 
 thereto, and his successors shall be a Body Politic, and corpo- 
 rate with perpetual succession, and may receive and take to 
 himself and his successors, all such lands, tenements, tithes, 
 rent charges, and hereditaments, as shall be granted unto him 
 or them, and such Perpetual Curate shall thenceforth have 
 within the limits of the District Parish, formed under the 
 Church Building Acts for the Church of such Perpetual 
 Curacy, sole and exclusive cure of souls, and shall not in any- 
 wise be subject to the control or interference of the incumbent 
 or incambents of the Benefice or Benefices to be aftected by 
 such order, if he or they shall have consented to such order as 
 aforesaid, but, if such incumbent or incumbents shall not have
 
 — 209 — 
 
 so consented thereto, this last mentioned provision shall not 
 come into operation, until the next avoidance of the Benefice 
 by the incumbent objecting thereto, or by the surviving incum- 
 bent objecting, if more than one shall object thereto, and in 
 such case the last-mentioned provision shall forthwith after 
 such avoidance come into operation, and shall be binding on all 
 persons whatsoever." 
 
 And whereas, the Lord Bishop of the Diocese of Salisbury, 
 hath drawn up together with a scheme, a representation in 
 writing, bearing date the 9th day of July, 1860, and hath 
 transmitted the same to His Grace the Lord Archbishop of 
 Canterbury, in the words and figures following, that is to 
 say : — 
 
 " To the Most Reverend John Bird, 
 Lord Archbishop of the Province of Canterbury." 
 
 " I, the Right Reverend Walter Kerr, Lord Bishop of Salis- 
 bury, to represent to your Grace, that to the Vicarage and 
 Parish Church of Broad Chalke belong two ancient Parochial 
 Chapelries, namely, — Burr Chalke, otherwise Bower Chalke, 
 and Alveston, otherwise Alverdiston, all in the County of 
 Wilts and my Diocese of Salisbury, the limits and boundaries 
 whereof are well known and defined." 
 
 " That according to the Census of 1851, the population of 
 the said parish of Broad Chalke, with the Parochial Chapelry 
 of Burr Chalke, otherwise Bower Chalke, annexed (exclusive 
 of the Parochial Chapelry of Alveston, otherwise Alverdiston ;) 
 is 1330, and the population of the said Parochial Chapelry of 
 Alveston, otherwise Alverdiston, is 278. 
 
 That the annual value of the Vicarage of Broad Chalke 
 with Burr Chalke, otherwise Bower Chalke aforesaid (exclu- 
 sive of what arises within the said Parochial Chapelry of 
 Alveston, otherwise Alverdiston, and exclusive of the annual 
 value of the Vicarage house and appurtenances at Broad 
 Chalke aforesaid, amounts to the sum of ,£^311 or thereabouts; 
 arising from Glebe and Tithe-rent charge, namely, in respect 
 of Glebe, the sum of £7i, and in respect of Tithe rent charge 
 the sura of £24^0, and that the annual income derivable from 
 the said Parochial Chapelry of Alveston, otherwise Alver- 
 diston, amounts to the sum of ^82 2s., arising from Glebe and 
 Tithe rent charge, namely, in respect of Glebe, the sum of two 
 
 p
 
 — 210 — 
 
 pounds, two shillings, and in respect of Tithe rent charge, the 
 sum of £80. 
 
 That the said Parochial Chapelry of Alverston, otherwise 
 Alvediston, is separated from the parish of liroad Chalke, by 
 the Parochial Chapelries of Ebbesbornc and ]Jurr Chalke, 
 alias Bower Chalke aforesaid, and from the Parochial Chapelry 
 of J3urr, alias Bower Chalke, by Ebbesborne, and is distant 
 from the said parish of Broad Chalke, at the nearest point, 
 four and a quarter miles, and from the said Parochial Chapelry 
 of Burr Chalke, otherwise Bower Chalke, three and half miles, 
 and that the inhabitants of the said Parochial Chapelry of 
 Alveston, otherwise Alverdiston, are distant from the said 
 parish church of Broad Chalke, by the nearest roadway, five 
 miles. 
 
 That there is a chapel in the said Parochial Chapelry of 
 Alveston otherwise Alverdiston, kept in good repair by the 
 inhabitants of the said Parochial Chapelry, and that it is 
 capable of affording sufficient accommodation to the said inha- 
 bitants, who from time immemorial have resorted to the said 
 Chapel, and have elected from amongst themselves exclusively, 
 Chapelwardens, as if the same were a distinct and separate 
 Benefice. 
 
 " That Baptisms, Churchings, Marriages, and Burials, have 
 heretofore been, and are now, performed in the said Chapel, 
 and the Burial Ground thereto belonging. 
 
 " That the patronage of the Vicarage and Parish Church of 
 Broad Chalke aforesaid, with the said Parochial Chapelries of 
 Burr Chalke, otherwise Bower Chalke, and Alveston, other- 
 wise Alverdiston, is vested in the Provost of the King's Col- 
 lege of Blessed Mary, and Saint Nicholas of Cambridge, and 
 the scholars of the same College. 
 
 " That the Rectorial Tithe of the said Vicarage of Broad 
 Chalke is now legally vested in the said Provost and scholars, 
 patrons as aforesaid, who purpose on the separation of the said 
 Parochial Chapelry of Alveston, otherwise Alverdiston, to 
 endow the proposed separate Benefice with the annual sum or 
 rent of sixteen pounds, to be charged upon the said Rectorial 
 Tithe. ^ "^ ^ 
 
 " That the Reverend Rowland Williams, D.D. is now the 
 Vicar thereof.
 
 — 211 — 
 
 " That the Vicarage of Broad Chalke, with Burr Chalke, 
 otherwise Bower Chalke, and Alveston, otherwise AlverdistoD, 
 is discharged from the payment of first fruits and tenths. 
 
 " That it appears to me, that under the provisions of the 
 Act of Parhanient, of the first and second years of the reign of 
 Her present Majesty, cap. 106, and of the second and third 
 years of the same reign, cap. 49, the said Parochial Chapelry 
 of Alveston, otherwise Alverdiston, may be advantageously 
 separated from the said Vicarage and Parish of Broad Chalke, 
 and be constituted a separate Benefice for Ecclesiastical 
 purposes. 
 
 " That pursuant to the direction contained in the twenty- 
 sixth section of the first mentioned Act, I have prepared the 
 following Scheme, which, together with the consent thereto of 
 the Patron and Incumbent of the said Vicarage, I do submit 
 to your Grace, to the intent that your Grace may, if, on full 
 consideration and enquiry, you shall be satisfied with such 
 scheme, certify the same and such consent to Her Majesty in 
 Council. 
 
 The Scheme above referred to. 
 
 " That the said ancient Parochial Chapelry of Alveston, 
 otherwise Alverdiston, shall be separated from the said Vicar- 
 age and Parish Church of Broad Chalke, and be constituted a 
 separate Benefice by the name or style of " The Perpetual 
 Curacy of Alverdiston," 
 
 " That such new Benefice, shall be subject to the same 
 Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction as the said Vicarage of Broad 
 Chalke, and the Incumbent thereof, shall have exclusive cure 
 of souls within the limits of the same respectively. 
 
 " That all so much, and such part of the Tithe rent 
 charges, or other payments, or compositions, for, or in lieu, of 
 Tithes belonging to the said Vicarage of Broad Chalke, as 
 arise and accrue, or are, or may be, payable within, or in 
 respect of, the said Parochial Chapelry of Alverdiston, and also 
 
 p2
 
 — 212 — 
 
 the produce of the Glebe Lands withiu, and belonging to, the 
 said Parochial Chapelry of Alverdiston ; and also all the 
 surplus fees for Baptisms, Marriages, Churchings, and Burials, 
 or other Ecclesiastical offices solemnized or performed within 
 the same parish, and all dues, offerings, and other emoluments, 
 arising within, or in respect of, the same Parochial Chapelry 
 of Alverdiston, and usually payable to an Incumbent of a 
 Benefice, shall respectively belong, and bo attached to the 
 said proposed new Benefice of Alverdiston for ever, and be 
 held, received, and enjoyed, by the Perpetual Curate, for the 
 time being thereof accordingly. 
 
 " That the patronage or right of nominating Ministers to 
 said proposed new Benefice of Alverdiston, shall be and be 
 vested in the Vicar of Broad Chalke for the time being. 
 
 " That the inhabitants of the said Parochial Chapelry of 
 Alverdiston, shall continue and be liable to the repairs and 
 maintenance of the Chapel of their own Parish, and shall not 
 be liable to contribute to the repairs and maintenance of the 
 Parish Church of Broad Chalke, nor any Church or Chapel, 
 now or hereafter built elsewhere than within the limits of such 
 Parochial Chapelry, nor shall the inhabitants of the same 
 Parish be entitled as inhabitants to any pews or sittings 
 within the said Mother Church of Broad Chalke." 
 
 Given under my hand this 9th day of July, in the 
 year of our Lord, ISb'O. 
 
 (Signed) W. K. Sarum. 
 
 Consent above referred to. 
 
 We, the Right Worshipful Richard Okes, Doctor in 
 Divinity, Provost of the King"'s College of Blessed Mary 
 and Saint Nicholas of Cambridge, and the Scholars of the 
 same College, the Patrons of the said Vicarage of Broad 
 Chalke, with Burr Chalke, otherwise Bower Chalke and 
 Alveston, otherwise Alverdiston, and the Reverend Rowland 
 Williams. Doctor in Divinity, the Vicar thereof, do hereby
 
 — 213 — 
 
 signify our consent to the scheme above proposed for separating 
 the said ancient Parochial Chapelry of Alveston, otherwise 
 Alverdiston, from the said Vicarage and Parish, or Mother 
 Church of Broad Ohalke, and constituting such Parochial 
 Chapelry of Alveston, otherwise Alverdiston, a separate 
 Benefice and Perpetual Curacy. In witness whereof, we, the 
 said Provost and Scholars, have hereunto set the common 
 seal of our said College, and I, the said Rowland Williams, 
 have set my hand and seal this 3rd day of December, in the 
 year of our Lord, 1860. 
 
 (Signed) Rowland Williams, D.D. 
 Vicar of Broad Chalke, with Bower Chalke, 
 
 and Alverdiston. L.s. 
 
 And whereas His Grace the Lord Archbishop of Can- 
 terbury hath, pursuant to the provisions of the said Acts, 
 duly prepared and laid before Her Majesty in Council, a 
 certificate and report in writing, bearing date the 4th day of 
 January, 1861, in the words and figures following, that is to 
 say : — 
 
 " To the Queen's Most Excellent Majesty in Council. 
 
 " We, the undersigned, John Bird, by Divine Providence, 
 Lord Archbishop of Canterbury, do hereby certify unto your 
 Majesty in Council, that we have received a representation, 
 with a scheme, in writing, under the hand of the Right 
 Reverend Walter Kerr, Lord Bishop of Salisbury, bearing- 
 date the 9th day of July last, and hereto annexed, stating 
 amongst other things, that to the Vicarage and Parish 
 Church of Broad Chalke, belong two ancient Parochial 
 Chapelries, namely. Burr Chalke, otherwise Bower Chalke 
 and Alveston, otherwise Alverdiston, all in the County of 
 Wilts, and Diocese of Salisbury, the limits and boundaries 
 whereof are well known and defined. And that it appeared 
 to his Lordship the said Parochial Chapelry of Alveston, 
 otherwise Alverdiston, might be advantageously separated 
 fi:om the said Vicarage and Parish Church of Broad Chalke, 
 and be constituted a separate Benefice for Ecclesiastical 
 purposes, by the name or style of the Perpatual Curacy of 
 Alverdiston," as in the said representation and scheme is 
 more fully set forth. And the consent in writing of the 
 Right Worshipful Richard Okes, D.D., Provost of the King's 
 College of Blessed Mary and Saint Nicholas of Cambridge,
 
 — 214 — 
 
 and the Scholars of the same College, the Patrons of the 
 said Vicarage of Broad Chalke, with Burr Chalke, otherwise 
 Bower Chalke and Alvcston, otherwise Alverdiston, under 
 the common seal of the said College, and the consent of the 
 Reverend Rowland Williams, D.D., the Vicar thereof, under 
 his hand, is also annexed. And we, the said Archbishop, 
 being on full consideration and enquiry, satisfied with such 
 scheme do certify the same, and the consents aforesaid, under 
 the provisions of the Act of Parliament, made and passed in 
 the Session of Parliament, held in the first and second years 
 of your Majesty's reign, intituled, " an Act to abridge the 
 holding of Benefices in plurality, and to make better pro- 
 vision for the residence of the clergy," and also another Act 
 of Parliament, made and passed in the Session of Parliament, 
 held in the second and third years of your Majesty's reign, 
 intituled, " An Act to make better provision for the assign- 
 ment of Ecclesiastical Districts to Churches or Chapels, 
 augmented by the Governors of the Bounty of Queen Anne, 
 and for other purposes," to the intent that your Majesty in 
 Council, may, in case your Majesty in Council shall think 
 fit so to do, make and issue an order for carrying the said 
 scheme into effect, declaring that the patronage or right of 
 nomination to the said proposed new Benefice of Alverdiston, 
 shall be vested in the Vicar of Broad Chalke for the time 
 being. As witness our hand this 10th day of January, in 
 the year of our Lord, 1861. 
 
 (Signed) J. B. Cantuar. 
 
 Now therefore. Her Majesty in Council, by and with the 
 advice of Her said Council, is pleased to approve of the said 
 scheme of the said Bishop of Salisbury, and to order, and it is 
 hereby ordered that the same be carried into efiect. 
 
 Arthur Helps. 
 FiTZ Macdonald, Registrar. 
 
 THE END.
 
 F. Shoberl, Printer, 37, Dean Street, Soho, W.
 
 Wn^'^'^rk« ANGELES
 
 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA LIBRARY 
 
 Los Angeles 
 This book is DUE on the last date stamped below. 
 
 ''y^&l'/'W-^ 
 
 m-i 
 
 ^r!\:
 
 "s^ \^'J • 
 
 UC SOUTHERN REGIONAL LIBRARY FACILITY 
 
 AA 000 979 638 
 
 
 ^ '