fence of an individual. It is the assertion of a new and revolutionary principle; which, if sanctioned by authority, will make all the doctrinal teaching of the Church of England mere waste paper; subscriptions to articles and formularies an unmeaning ceremony; and practically annihilate the distinction between faith and unbelief. As long as Mr. Stephen's statements were confined to the precincts of an ecclesiastical court, or the unofficial reports and small print of a public journal, they were of little general interest. Their publication in the book-market alters the state of the case, and makes them public property. It is, in fact, an appeal from the court to the judgment of the public, and gives to all readers the right to weigh the arguments, test the authorities, and confront both with the teaching of the Church and the statements of her greatest divines. It is true that Mr. Stephen sets out with a protest, that "the Divine authority of the Scriptures is not an issue in this cause, that it never was for one instant impugned by his client; and that he professes to hold it in the strongest sense." With that protest, so far as it concerns his client, the public have at present nothing to do. Our concern is now with Mr. Stephen and his argument, the whole object, tenor, and course of which seem to impugn

the Divine authority of Scripture; to prove that it is not the Word of God, but only contains it; and to bring it down to the level of a human composition by asserting, that as the vehicle of revelation, "it is not absolutely pure, nor free from the stains and inaccuracies which appear to be necessary to every thing else, which is in any way mixed up with human nature." Indeed the distinction between the Word of God and the Bible is the fundamental principle upon which the whole superstructure of his argument is raised. Mr. Stephen's statement of this principle is as follows:

2. "Two views are possible with respect to the Bible. All Christians believe that God has made a revelation to man, which revelation consists in part of precepts to be obeyed, in part of doctrines to be believed. All Protestants believe that that revelation is contained in the Bible, to the exclusion of tradition. And here a difference begins; for whilst some Protestants believe that the Bible contains the revelation, others believe it constitutes the revelation. (I advisedly call your lordship's attention to that distinction, for I think you will find it applies to every part of this case, and that it is a vital and decisive one.)

1 Defence, p. 21.

I say some consider that the Bible contains the Christian religion-the aggregate of the principles, the precepts, and the doctrines revealed by God to man-is the proper object of belief, and that to it, and to it alone, Divine authority is to be ascribed; whilst others believe that the Bible itself constitutes Christianity; that being itself the revelation from God to man, every word it contains is of equal and absolute authority.

"Having pointed out this vital distinction, I proceed to a further remark, hardly less important to the full understanding of the case I have set up. Either of these opinions-the opinion that the Bible contains Christianity-the opinion that the Bible constitutes Christianity— is consistent with the belief that the Bible is, in point of fact, absolutely true throughout. Either, I say, is consistent with that belief: for, first, those who believe that the Bible contains Christianity, may believe that it pleased Almighty God to enclose that divine essence in a vase as perfect as the essence itself; and that as He saw fit to communicate to mankind those truths which were essential to their happiness, here and hereafter, so He also saw fit to do it through a channel as pure, as free from all human corruption as the truths which emanated from Himself.

“But though that is so, those who believe that the Bible contains Christianity are not compelled to hold this opinion. It is perfectly consistent with their fundamental principle, that as children learn religion and virtue from imperfect parents, and as subjects learn justice from laws imperfect in themselves, and administered by imperfect judges, so it may have pleased God that the vehicle of His revelation to man should not be absolutely pure, and free from stains and inaccuracies, which appear to be necessary to every thing else which is in any way mixed up with human nature.

66

Those, on the other hand, who believe that the Bible constitutes Christianity, that the Bible itself is the revelation of God to man, the ultimate and final object of belief, cannot take that course. They can admit no imperfection; they must maintain that every word, every letter, every precept, every fact, capital or circumstantial, stands on the same foundation, and is absolutely and entirely true; for what higher warrant can mortal man have of the truth of any proposition whatever, than the fact that that proposition is asserted by Almighty God?”

3. Upon this statement I remark, first, that Mr. Stephen confounds ideas perfectly distinct, and uses terms as equivalent which are not so.

He confounds the ideas expressed by "revelation," "Christianity," "the Christian religion," and uses the words as if they all stood for the same thing. Revelation is of much wider signification than Christianity or the Christian religion. Revelation contains Christianity and the Christian religion, but it contains more, as, for instance, the ceremonial and political laws of the Jews, the boastings of Sennacherib, the prophecies concerning Nineveh, Babylon, &c. &c. The Christian religion can only mean God's revelation of the way of salvation through Christ. Christianity may mean the same, but it may also mean a Christian's personal religion. This confusion has led to a wrong division of the subject, as we shall see presently. Secondly, I remark that Mr. Stephen propounds a view of the Bible which seems altogether new, namely, "that the Bible constitutes Christianity, and is the ultimate and final object of belief." I confess I have never read or heard of any sect or individuals who held or hold this view. Dr. Chalmers certainly did not. Nor do his words, quoted by Mr. Stephen, imply any thing of the kind. They simply state that the entire authorship of the Bible is to be ascribed to God. "He being the Author of the ordinary as well as of the miraculous . . . that the whole authorship in substance and ex