events, is undoubtedly true, that the doctrine is Divine, even though he doubt, on critical grounds, the genuineness of some verse or verses, could nevertheless, with truth and honesty, make the affirmation required from deacons. So far the affirmation leaves open the question of criticism. The candidate may investigate the text, prefer one reading to another, doubt concerning some words or verses; but he may not reject a book or books enumerated in the Sixth Article, nor the authorship of a psalm or prophecy, so as to contradict an assertion of the New Testament. The Church of England does not leave the question of criticism entirely open, nor entirely close it. The determinations of the Church as to the canon-and the requirement of belief of all the canonical Scriptures-impose limits. Within these limits the clergy are free, and we know from splendid examples, past and present, that the possession and exercise of the highest powers of criticism are compatible with the simple, sincere, and old-fashioned faith of a Christian. truth, the difficulties from textual criticism are not so great as some would represent. Take any text, or even translation, of the Old or New Testament, the canonical books remain the same -the historic narrative, with slight exceptions, remains the same-the miracles, the prophecies,

In

and the way of salvation remain the same, so that whatever text a student may prefer, he may still believe all the canonical books, and make the affirmation required. As to the so-called higher criticism, he who observes the self-confident tone, the unwarranted assertions, the utter and hopeless discord prevailing amongst its greatest adepts, and often their arrogant contempt for one another, will not feel much moved by it, or inclined to exchange the sober convictions of the Church in all ages for the theories of yesterday. But as this affirmation, taken with the Articles, set bounds to criticism, so they together prescribe limits with regard to interpretation. The affirmation just considered, necessarily forbids any interpretation incompatible with the faith required. The dogmatic decisions of the Thirty-nine Articles make unlawful any interpretation contravening the statements therein contained. Thus, when the Eighth Article affirms that the Three Creeds can be proved by most certain warrants of Holy Scripture, it prohibits any interpretation explaining away the resurrection of the body or the personal return of Christ, or the general judgment. In like manner, when the Second Article asserts that Christ suffered "to reconcile the Father to us," it prohibits any interpretation contradicting that statement. The Twentieth

Article limits interpretation still more by declaring that "it is not lawful to expound one place of Scripture that it be repugnant to another." This binds the minister of the Church of England in his interpretations to have regard to all Scripture, and not to make any portion of it of private interpretation. For him it is not lawful to interpret the 110th Psalm of David or Solomon, for that would be repugnant to Matt. xxii. 43, where Christ interprets it of Himself. Neither is he at liberty to expound Isaiah liii. of the Jewish people, or of the prophets, or of Jeremiah, for our Lord appropriates it, Luke xxii. 37, to Himself. Still further limitations are imposed by the prayers contained in our Common Prayer Book. Where these limitations do not apply, interpretation is free; where they do, the clergy are bound; and, if they do not find these limitations consistent with their convictions, the Church does not compel them to remain, or to profess doctrines which they do not believe. She gives her ministers not the licence of the savage, but a liberty analogous to that enjoyed by the citizens of a well-ordered commonwealth, a liberty defined and made certain by law: obedience to that law every candidate for her orders voluntarily takes upon himself; and he who has honestly subscribed her Articles, and thoughtfully and seriously affirmed

that he unfeignedly believes all canonical Scripture, necessarily shares the Church's interpretations, and therefore feels no restraint. Her principles are his, and lead to the same conclusion. And, therefore, in the writings of her greatest Divines, we find no complaints of bondage, no violent attempts to wrest her words from their plain meaning, no convulsive writhings to deliver an uneasy conscience from the obligation of vows voluntarily made; but an affectionate adherence to her principles, and a plain, straightforward, and unequivocal enunciation of her doctrines, as will appear from considering Mr. Stephen's authorities, the great theological writers of the seventeenth century.

DIVINES OF THE SEVENTEENTH CENTURY.

20. Having, as he thinks, proved his view from the Articles and a comparison of them with the Westminster Confession, Mr. Stephen then endeavours to show that the principles of the great Divines of the seventeenth century lead to the same conclusion ".

"I will show your lordship what was the sentiment of the leading Divines of the Church of England upon this subject. I will show that

'Defence, &c., p. 85.

there existed upon this very point a most important controversy in the century immediately following the Reformation, and that those Divines who were the defenders of the Church of England against the Calvinists and against the Puritans, took a view of the Bible which leads by direct logical inference to the views now maintained by Dr. Williams."

What Mr. Stephen means by the words "upon this very point," is not clear from the context. But if he means the point with which he sets out, and which is the leading idea of his whole argument," the two views in which the Bible was regarded, one that the Bible contained, and the other that it constituted Christianity "," then Mr. Stephen is entirely mistaken. There was in the seventeenth century no controversy of the kind, and his own quotations prove his mistake. There were two great controversies, one with the Romanists about the rule of faith, which is the great subject of Chillingworth's famous book; the other with the Puritans, about ecclesiastical policy, which called forth the treatise of the judicious Hooker. In this latter controversy many of the most distinguished defenders of the Church of England and opponents of the Puri

Defence, &c., p. 280.

G