and by declaring that the latter may not be applied to establish doctrine, it asserts that the former, all and every part of them, may be so applied. By the denial of the one, it affirms the other, and at the same time defines the nature of the authority ascribed to the canonical books, namely, their sufficiency to establish doctrine, and the extent of authority, that they command submission and faith, as is also plainly expressed in the Eighth Article. "The three Creeds... ought thoroughly to be received and believed: for they may be proved by most certain warrants of Holy Scripture."

But from the nature and extent of authority thus ascribed to the Holy Scriptures, it follows that they must be infallible. If not, they cannot be a certain rule of faith, or a certain proof of doctrine. What is fallible, that is, what may or may not be false, cannot prove the truth of any thing, much less that of an article of faith. But if Holy Scripture be, what the Sixth and Eighth Articles make it, an irresistible proof of doctrine, it cannot be in any part mistaken, untrue, or inaccurate, that is, it must be infallible as a whole and in all its parts. And, if it be infallible, then beyond all doubt it must all be inspired of God. Nothing human is infallible. What is infallible cannot, therefore, have man as its au

thor. It must be, as the Homily says, the Scripture of God. The canonical books must be, as the Articles affirm, divine books-divine Scriptures-the Word of God, whose authority is most holy (auctoritas sacrosancta). And thus the substance and intention of the Sixth Article, in distinguishing between canonical and apocryphal books, leads to the same conclusion as that implied in its title, that the Holy Scriptures are the inspired and infallible Word of God. Its teaching is in accordance with the faith of the Jews, the early Christians, the medieval Church, and the Reformers; and also with the doctrine of modern divines of very different schools, that canonical is equivalent to inspired; that the reason for admitting any book into the canon was the belief that it was inspired: and the reason for excluding it from the canon, the belief that it was not inspired. The Sixth Article does, therefore, determine the source, nature, and extent of the authority due to Scripture. It does not leave open 66 any question as to what is the specific differentia, the contradistinguishing quality of every text of Scripture, as opposed to every other text of every other book." It does not leave open "the question of inspiration." An article directly affirming the inspiration of Holy Scripture would not have met

the object which the Reformers had in view, and would not have been nearly so stringent in the present day as the Sixth Article in its present form. Romanists believed in the inspiration of Scripture, but did not believe in the sufficiency of the canonical Scriptures. That, then, was the point requiring affirmation and prominence. In the present day, men, who look upon Solon or Shakespeare as inspired as well as Moses and Isaiah, could easily escape from an assertion of the inspiration of Scripture. The doctrine of the sufficiency of the Holy Scripture to prove articles of faith, necessarily implying their infallibility, presents an insuperable difficulty to any man holding that the Bible is not absolutely pure, nor free from those stains and inaccuracies which are the necessary concomitants of human nature; that is, if he have a conscience. We may be thankful, therefore, that instead of an article entitled "The Inspiration of the Bible," we have one asserting the distinction between canonical and apocryphal in such a way as necessarily to imply the doctrine of the Divine authority and infallibility of all Scripture.

17. The general ascription of Divine authority to all the canonical books of the Old and New Testament also confutes Mr. Stephen's insinuation, that the Seventh Article ascribes a lower

degree of authority to the Old Testament than the New. What this disparagement of the Old Testament has to do with the learned gentleman's argument it is not easy to see, unless he has a misgiving as to this part of his case, and wishes to make provision accordingly. However that may be, his inference from the Seventh Article is unwarranted by the words cited, and is directly contradicted by the Sixth, which places the Scriptures of both Testaments on the same footing as the rule of faith, and therefore leaves no room for inequality in authority. His second inference that the Seventh Article "meant to leave open the question of the fourth commandment" is just as unwarranted, and negatived by its insertion in the Communion Service with the annexed petition, "Lord, have mercy upon us, and incline our hearts to keep this law." His reference to the Catechism to prove that the Seventh Article intended to leave open this question, is equally unhappy.

"In the Catechism there is a very striking illustration of this. The answer to the question, What is my duty towards God?' goes through particularly the Christian duties, and it does not mention the duty of observing the Sunday. It says, 'To serve Him truly all the days of my life;' not more particularly on the seventh day, but all the days of my life."

F

Mr. Stephen seems to have forgotten the question prefixed to the commandments: "You said, that your Godfathers and Godmothers did promise for you that you should keep God's commandments; tell me how many there be. Answer. Ten. Question. Which be they? Answer. The same which God spake in the twentieth chapter of Exodus," &c.; and then, in its due place, appears the fourth commandment in all its integrity. In the Lutheran Catechism, on the contrary, it is altered to "Thou shalt keep the Holy-day." Luther not believing in the obligation of the fourth commandment, altered it to suit his views. Our own Reformers, regarding it as morally binding, make a promise to keep it one of the conditions of baptism, and, in the Catechism and the most solemn service of the Church, give it in all its fulness without any abridgment or alteration.

18. We now come to the question and answer in the Ordination Service for Deacons, which Mr. Stephen justly feels to be one of great difficulty, and therefore uses his utmost ingenuity to get rid of. This question and answer, taken in connexion with the Sixth Article, entirely annihilate the theory, which distinguishes between

Dr. M. Luther's Katechismus, Berlin, 1825, p. 4: sollst den Feiertag heiligen."

"Du