cupas? A. Non alia quam quæ per Mosen et prophetas sanctos, Dei optimi maximi amicos, Divini Spiritus instinctu, in veteri testamento primum, deinde in Novo Testamento per Dominum Nostrum Jesum Christum Dei filium, atque sanctos ejus apostolos numine Dei afflatos divulgata sunt, et ad nostram usque ætatem integra conservata atque illæsa."

24. In like manner Abp. Sandys says: "The foundation of our religion is the written word, the Scriptures of God, the undoubted record of the Holy Ghost."

So Abp. Whitgift: "I have learned with St. Augustine to give this reverence only to the writers of the canonical Scriptures, that I think none of them to have erred in writing. And I do firmly believe that only the books of the canonical Scripture are of that absoluteness and perfection that nothing may be taken away from them, nothing added to them."

25. Whitaker, to whom reference has already been made to show the faith of the primitive Church, is equally explicit in professing his own faith in the Scriptures as the inspired and infallible word of God. He teaches, first, that Scripture is the written word of God, p. 24:

"We are commanded to search the Scripture; and under the name of Scripture the written word of God is plainly understood." Speaking of the Romanist opinions about Scripture, he says, p. 705: "The first concerned the number of canonical and truly inspired Scriptures." Here canonical is commensurate with "truly inspired." In answer to the Jesuit objection, that the Apostles wrote without command, moved merely by the circumstances of the occasion, just what the Rationalists teach, he says, p. 526: "Can we suppose that the Apostles and Evangelists attempted to write without a command or authority? Was it under the impulse of some slight occasional motive that they wrote so many works? or did they not follow therein the authority of the Holy Spirit? Surely we cannot entertain the former thought without impiety. We believe" (not, it is our opinion)—"We believe that they were induced and moved to write by the special authority of Christ and the Holy Spirit; for the Scripture is called OeóvevσTOS, that is, delivered by the impulse and suggestion of the Holy Ghost. And 2 Pet. i. 21, Peter testifies that holy men spake 'as they were moved by the Holy Ghost;' which makes it plain that they followed the impulse and authority of the Holy Spirit, not their own will and choice. The men

I

were merely the instruments; it was the Holy Ghost who dictated to them." Then, after quoting several texts of Scripture and sayings of the Fathers, he adds, p. 528: "From these considerations it is manifest, that all the books of the Old and New Testaments were written not merely by the command, but under the very dictation of Christ; nor yet merely occasionally, or under the suggestion of some slight circumstance, but with the deliberate purpose of serving the Church in all ages." In answer to another Romanist objection, similar to the Rationalist opinion of the human element in Scripture, that "the Scripture is not the voice of God, but the Word of God; i. e. that it does not proceed immediately from God, but is delivered mediately to us through others," he replies, "We confess that God hath not spoken by Himself, but by others. Yet this does not diminish the authority of Scripture. For God inspired the prophets with what they said, and made use of their mouths, tongues, and hands: the Scripture, therefore, is even immediately the voice of God. The prophets and Apostles were only the organs of God. It was God who spake to the fathers in the prophets and through the prophets. Heb. i. 1. 2 Pet. i. 20. ... Therefore, the Scripture is the voice of the Spirit, and consequently the voice of God."

But, says the Romanist", "In the Creed we believe in the Church, not in the Scriptures:" to which Whitaker answers,-"The Scripture is not rejected from the Creed; for the Creed is a compendium and epitome of the whole Scripture. Besides, in the Creed we indicate our belief in Scripture; for when I profess that 'I believe in God,' I profess also that I believe that God speaks in His Word, and consequently that I receive and venerate all Divine Scripture."

26. Another authority whom Mr. Stephen claims, and upon whose statements he lays a peculiar emphasis, is

"Dr. Jackson, Dean of Peterborough in the early part of the seventeenth century. . . . He wrote a book called The Eternal Truth of the Scriptures and Christian Belief thereon depending, manifested by its own light. Its object is to prove the truth of the Bible; and he goes through a great variety of argument, historical and moral, showing in various ways the excellence of the matter which the Bible contains. He says that the way by which you may be assured of the truth of it is by what he calls the experimental method—a paraphrase obviously of the well-known text, 'He that doeth the will of

9 P. 296.

my Father shall know of the doctrine.' In the course of that book he discusses this most important question: How much of the Bible can be proved to be true by this method?"

Though unable to find this question discussed in any part of Dr. Jackson's book, and regarding this account of it as most unsatisfactory, yet, for brevity sake, I hasten on to Mr. S.'s equally unsatisfactory account of what he thinks confirms his own theory. After a long extract, he says:

"The gist of it is this: How are you to know, says the objector, the truth of the whole of the Bible? Jackson says, it all hangs together. No, says the objector, it does not. Well, says Jackson, if you insist upon it, it does not; but at the same time you must believe the whole for the sake of the other part that you have reason to believe. Yes, says the objector, but suppose I do not see that? Then, says Jackson, you must trust to God. He will not suffer you to be tempted above your strength." Now, suppose for a moment that this caricature is a correct representation of Dr. Jackson's reasoning, would a man in the mental condition of the objector be a fit candidate for orders, or for any pastoral position in the Church of England; for this is, after all, the great question of the day? Here is an objector who does not believe all the canonical Scriptures,