of Religion as to the construction of which a reasonable doubt exists, the question may arise how far opinions of a similar character to those charged to be heretical have been held by eminent divines without challenge or molestation, because the proof of their having been so held may tend to show the bona fides of the doubt. In this respect also we have ample guidance from authority: and it will be found that where the Article in question is subject to reasonable doubt, and eminent divines have held opinions similar to those impugned in the case before the court, that circumstance alone has been held to be of great weight in inducing the court to allow a similar latitude of construction to the party accused, without itself deciding upon the construction of the Articles. Thus, in the case of Williams v. The Bishop of Salisbury (ubi sup.), the judgment of the committee contains this passage: "It is obvious that there may be matters of doctrine on which the Church has not given any definite rule or standard of faith or opinion; there may be matters of religious belief on which the requisition of the Church may be less than Scripture may seem to warrant; there may be very many matters of religious speculation and inquiry on which the Church may have refrained from pronouncing any opinion at all. On matters on which the Church has prescribed no rule there is so far freedom of opinion that they may be discussed without penal consequences. Nor in a proceeding like the present are we at liberty to ascribe to the Church any rule or teaching which we do not find expressly and distinctly stated, or which is not plainly involved in or to be collected from that which is written." To proceed, then, to the particular offences charged to have been committed by Mr. Voysey. In the passages cited from his publication called The Sling and the Stone, in the 7th, 8th, and 9th articles of charge, he is alleged to have maintained the following positions : -1. That Christ has not made an atonement or reconciliation for sin, and has not been made a sacrifice to reconcile the Father to us: (10th art. of charge.) 2. That there is no need of any atonement or sacrifice, nor any place for such in the purpose of God: (11th art. of charge.) 3. That Christ did not bear the punishment due to our sins, nor suffer in our stead, and that to think that he did, or that it was necessary that he should suffer, is the most revolting of all the popular beliefs: (12th art. of charge). The 13th article of charge we have rejected. Now, the 2nd Article of Religion expressly asserts that Christ " truly suffered, was crucified, dead, and buried to reconcile His Father to us, and to be a sacrifice, not only for original guilt, but also for all actual sins of men." The 15th Article of Religion declares that Christ" came to be the Lamb without spot, who, by sacrifice of Himself once made, should take away the sins of the world." And the 31st Article of Religion declares that "The offering of Christ once made is that perfect redemption, propitiation, and satisfaction for all the sins of the whole world, both original and actual, and that there is none other satisfaction for sin but that alone." We cannot doubt that these lastly-mentioned Articles of Religion assert in plain language that Christ was crucified to reconcile His Father to us (that is, to mankind), and was a sacrifice, and that He came by the sacrifice of Himself to take away the sins of the world-that the offering of Himself once made, is a perfect "propitiation

[PRIV. CO.

and satisfaction for the sins of the whole world ”—-and that there is none other satisfaction for sin but that alone. Neither can we doubt that it is plainly inconsistent with such statements to say that Christ has not made a reconciliation for sin, or has not been made a sacrifice to reconcile His Father to us; or that there is no need for any sacrifice, nor any place for such in the purpose of God. It will only remain, then, to inquire as to the first two charges against Mr. Voysey, whether he has in the passages of his work cited in that behalf, asserted the propositions therein charged. Before doing so it may be well, however, to observe that when the Articles of Religion speak of sacrifice and of oblation, and speak also of Christ being the Lamb without spot, and of His offering of Himself being a perfect satisfaction, and further allege that there is none other satisfaction for sin but that alone, it is impossible to construe the word "sacrifice" in any other sense than that in which it is ordinarily used, viz., as an offering to God-and that as such offering Christ's sacrifice is alleged to be a satisfaction, and the only satisfaction, for the sins of the world. Let us consider, then, the following passages in the appellant's publication, as cited in the articles of charge :"He" (meaning the Saviour) "never hinted at such a doctrine as that of the Fall of Man, or the Atonement by sacrifice, or Justification by Faith. He never taught that men needed to be accounted righteous before God, or needed any mediator to propitiate his wrath, or to draw them to HimselfAll these notions were Jewish, and Christ never gave any sanction or encouragement to them that I have been able to discover." And, again" Sincere sorrow for sin is, or ought to be, enough to make a man quite reconciled and at peace with God; at least so our Lord teaches. We do not, therefore, need any atonement or justification We need no atonement, for God requires none. We do not want to be justified, we do not want to be accounted righteous at all when we are not righteous; we only desire to be made righteous in God's good time. We seek reconciliation with God as a sorrowful and guilty son seeks reconciliation with a father: 'I will arise and go to my Father,' &c. The Father in heaven receives and embraces us, only with a compassion more tender, and a love more divine and inexhaustible. So we leave these Pauline doctrines for those who need them, thanking our heavenly Father that through His Son Jesus Christ we have learnt a better and surer way to that peace of God which passeth all understanding. The majority of Christians, though fast tending to a change in their views, still maintain, like the Christianised Jews of the first century, a belief in a God who requires sacrifice— actual bloodshedding-mediation instead of personal communion with the sinner, and is the God only of a chosen people; who loves the few that shall be saved, and leaves the rest to be damned, and who only loves and saves the few because Christ had died for them as their sacrifice. . . . To us God is a Father, and we are His children; and if this be true it sweeps away the dusty cobwebs of mediation, intercession, sacramental sacrifice, and all the sacred and consecrated follies which grow out of it. We want neither altar nor sacrifice, neither victim nor priest, no sprinkling of blood, no fumes of burning incense to render our approach to the mercy-seat of God more reverent or more successful.

I must own, however,

that while I thoroughly and heartily embrace the truth that Christ is our example, I cannot so readily embrace what is often understood by the statement that he is a sacrifice for sin. In one sense, Christ was indeed a sacrifice. His life was sacrificed to the bigotry and blind malice of chief priests in Judea. He was a sacrifice, too, in the sense of laying Himself open to persecution by an honest discharge of his duty, and in not trying to escape trouble by a violation of principle. Sin, too, caused His death, as it was sinful to bear malice towards one so innocent and good, and still more sinful to put Him to death for the claim which He made for Himself and for us all--that God was His Father and our Father, and we are His sons. But in what sense the death of Jesus Christ was a substitute for the punishment of your sins or mine I cannot discover. Theologians may be right, but until I can see reasonable ground for their opinion, I must keep my own. I can surely see and thankfully confess that His death has done me good, that his sacrifice has been most beneficial to the world in teaching and encouraging true heroism, true manliness, and true obedience to God's will. Had He not been martyred for the truths which He taught, those truths would probably have been far longer in making their way among men; and England, at this hour, might still have been in Pagan darknes. But then I know that this is not the common meaning of the words Christ suffered for us,' and I do not wish to pretend to put that meaning on them while I am using them in a totally different sense." We think that the expressions contained in these passages, and particularly in the last extract, cannot be reconciled with the teaching of the 2nd, 15th, and 31st Articles of Religion as regards Christ being crucified to reconcile the Father to us-and the necessity of a sacrifice for sin-and we hold, therefore, that the 10th and 11th articles of charge are proved against the appellant. As regards the third charge against the appellant, contained in the 12th article of charge, namely, that he has asserted "that Christ did not bear the punishment due to our sins, nor suffer in our stead and for us, and that to think that He did, or that it was necessary he should so suffer, is infinitely erroneous and dishonouring to God, and is the most revolting of all the popular beliefs,"- -we may remark that the somewhat uncharitable denunciation by the appellant of all who may happen to differ from him in holding this popular belief, is not the substance of the charge. The question is, whether it be or not, consistent with the Articles of Religion to deny that Christ bore the punishment due to our sins, or suffered in our stead. We think that to deny this statement without any qualification is inconsistent with the plain meaning of the 2nd and the 15th Articles of Religion already cited; the latter of which Articles is headed, "Of the one Oblation of Christ finished on the Cross," and proceeds to describe that offering to be the perfect redemption, propitiation, and satisfaction for the sins of the whole world. In these Articles also our Lord is described as without spot, i. e., sinless, and as suffering the painful death of the cross, which is styled His offering of Himself, and the result of his suffering so offered is said to be the redemption, propitiation, and satisfaction for all the sins of the whole world, both original and actual. It is not consistent with such statements to aver without any qualification that He did not

[PRIV. Co.

bear the punishment due to our sins, nor suffer in our stead. The passage we have lastly cited is one in which the appellant might seem to us to admit that he contravenes the Articles of Religion, for he fairly says that the common meaning of the words "Christ suffered for us" is totally different from the sense in which he uses those words. Had the appellant spoken less explicitly, we should have been disposed to regard his denial of the doctrine in question as having reference to some exaggerated statement respecting Christ having borne in hell the punishment due to man's sin; and even as it is, we are not unwilling to give the appellant the benefit of this doubt. In considering these first three charges, as in the consideration of those that follow, we have been most anxious to arrive at a fair construction of Mr. Voysey's writings, not only by examining the context which he has referred to as bearing on the passages cited, but also by attentively considering whether any previous writer, himself in Holy Orders, has been allowed, with impunity, to assert opinions similar to those of the appellant, so as to afford reasonable ground for holding that the appellant has merely availed himself of the privilege of adopting a possible interpretation of the language of the Articles, although it may appear to us that such interpretation is not sound or correct. But we can find nothing of the kind. The appellent, indeed, constantly refers to his views as being different from generally received doctrine, and be does not in his book, nor has he in his argument, cited any authority of divines holding views corresponding with his own. He founds, indeed, his argument mainly on the denial of original sin, or any original curse occasioned thereby, which assertions form the subject of other articles of charge; and if such be not a correct view of the meaning of the Articles of Religion, it is not surprising that the consequences he has derived from this doctrine should be equally inconsistent with them. We have not, however, forgotten to observe, that a considerable portion of the appellant's arguments in his writings is directed against special views of vicarious punishment and imputed righteousness which many divines have held, and which many other divines have considered exaggerated and unreasonable. If he had confined himself to such arguments as he might think fairly adducible in explanation of the doctrine enunciated in the Articles of Religion as to Christ suffering for sin, and offering Himself as a lamb without spot for all sins original and actual of the whole world, and being crucified in order to reconcile us to His Father, then he would be entitled to claim a latitude of interpretation which has been allowed to others; but he does not profess to interpret, he simply denies the position asserted in the Articles, and asserts other doctrines inconsistent with and repugnant to them. We now proceed to consider the fourth and fifth charges made against the ap pellant, viz., his alleged assertion "that mankind are not by nature born in sin and the children of God's wrath, and are not separated from God by sin, and under His wrath, or under a curse, and that they are not in danger of endless suffering, nor is there any curse to remove by the shedding of the innocent blood of Christ, and that the doctrine of the fall of man is contrary to the teaching of Jesus Christ," contrary, it is contended, to the 2nd and 9th Articles of Religion (see 7th article of charge); and again, "That mankind need no

atonement or justification, that salvation is not through justification, and that the doctrine of justification by faith is contrary to the teaching of Jesus Christ," which is alleged to contravene the 2nd and 11th Articles of Religion: (see 18th art. of charge). Now, the 2nd Article of Religion asserts that the "Son suffered to reconcile the Father to us and to be a sacrifice not only for original guilt, but also for all actual sins of men;" and the 9th Article of Religion in treating of "original or birth sin" says that "it standeth not in the following of Adam

.. but that it is the fault and corruption of every man that naturally is engendered of the offspring of Adam, whereby man is very far gone from original righteousness, and therefore, in every person born into the world it deserveth God's wrath and damnation." We think that the plain meaning of the 9th Article is to assert the existence of original or birth sin, and to state that such sin exists in every one descended from Adam; that by it every man is very far gone from original righteousness; and that this sin "deserves God's wrath and damnation." To assert, therefore, that children are not by nature children of God's wrath-that they are not separated from Him by sin, nor under His wrath, appears to us plainly inconsistent with the express language of the Articles of Religion. It being also expressly laid down that Christ suffered to reconcile the Father to us, and to be a sacrifice for original sin, it appears to us to be in contradiction to such statements to say that we are not under a curse, and that there is no curse to remove by the shedding of the innocent blood of Christ. To assert also that the doctrine of the fall of man is contrary to the teaching of Jesus Christ, whereas the 9th Article plainly asserts the doctrine, appears to us to contradict the Article. The question how far a denial of the doctrine, that man being born in sin is therefore an inheritor of endless suffering, plainly contradicts the Articles, may be open to much more doubt, regard being had to the decision in Wilson v. Fendall on the subject of assertions of a similar character with regard to the duration of the punishment of the wicked; but with this exception it appears to us to be clear, that if the fourth charge be, in fact, established by the appellant's writings, the offences therein alleged would be offences against the law ecclesiastical. Do, then, the extracts set out in the 15th and 16th articles of the charge bear out the charge? The appellant in the first of these extracts says, by way of censure of the opinion, "St. Paul said plainly that the whole human race should be set free from the curse in consequence of what Christ suffered-As in Adam all die, so in Christ shall all be made alive;"" and in the following extract he says, after citing the opinions of Augustine and of Milton, " And though St. Paul's doctrine is the most merciful, yet it leaves the mind aghast at the picture of God's cursing the whole race of mankind, and only removing that curse after being appeased by the shedding of innocent blood. This, of course, was simple Judaism, with a little of the genuine Gospel mixed up with it—an im mense advance on the pre-existing views, but still far, very far, from the sublime teaching of our Lord himself." The following extract should also be considered: "He therefore (meaning the Apostle St. Paul) succeeded in teaching many, both Jews and Gentiles, who had superstitions about sacrifice in common, to believe that the

[PRIV. CO.

death of Christ was a sufficient atonement for the sins of the whole world; and that it appeased the wrath of God entirely, and cancelled the curse against mankind. The arguments used by the Apostle might satisfy the Jews, but could scarcely satisfy us; as, for instance, when he says, 'Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us,' and because He was crucified, he quotes from some Jewish record that 'cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree,' as if the mere outward manner of Christ's death could of itself furnish any satisfaction to the human mind that that death removed a curse from the whole race. That such an argument could be used by St. Paul discloses to us how very deep down these Jews were sunk in dogmatic unreasonableness. At all events, he satisfied them that as by Adam's disobedience men had fallen from God, so by the death of Christ the curse was removed, and by His obedience He had rendered men righteous in the sight of God. Those who were dissatisfied with the old system at once embraced St. Paul's nobler and more rational views, and thankfully owned Jesus Christ as their Redeemer and Atonement, in a sense which, I do not scruple to declare, was never taught by our Lord himself. But what could a Jew or Pagan do else?... They [meaning ritualists or priests] are (most falsely, as it seems to me) convinced that we are all by nature in danger of endless suffering; and that, unless we obey them in thought, word, and deed, unless they pray and sacrifice for us, and they pardon our offences, there is no hope for us beyond the grave. We do not, then, wish to be ungrateful in declining their interference and in rejecting their control. We simply say to them, 'You have made a fatal error at the very outset of your principles. You have made an entirely false assumption at the very beginning, and therefore we do not wonder that your course is altogether a foolish and mistaken one. You say we are by nature separated from God, or under His wrath-chat He will not hear our prayers, or forgive our sins until we have been baptised, and have submitted ourselves to your authority. We deny this entirely. We say that we are not separated from God nor under His wrath; that God is always with us all, and we are His children by nature, and therefore we are near and dear to Him all our lives through. With or without your help we need no redemption in the sense in which you offer it to us. You are telling us we have got no friend here while outside your temple; but we know that we are not alone, because our Father is with us, and you can offer no friend, no Saviour, no Comforter, so good and true and faithful as He. We are therefore not afraid to disobey your injunctions, to tear up your creeds, and to despise your ordinances. For all these are based upon a fundamental mistake." If in the above extracts the appellant had been simply combating the extreme views which have been adopted by some divines, either with reference to what is commonly called Calvinism on the one hand or Ritualism on the other, we conceive he would have been fully entitled so to do; and we should have been glad if we could have so reconciled his writings with the doctrine contained in the Articles and Formularies of the Church, but the extracts themselves are clearly intended to teach that in no sense are mankind naturally separated from God, or under God's wrath, which he represents to be a false assumption at the very

beginning, and as occasioning the Ritualists, on that account, to take a foolish and mistaken course. It is true that he adds, as a portion of the error taught by them, and which he assumes to be their doctrine, "God will not hear our prayers, or forgive us our sins, until we have been baptised, and have submitted ourselves to your authority," meaning the authority of the priest; and if this had been all it might have admitted of explanation consistent with the doctrine of the Church; but the appellant makes his meaning clear, not only by the previously cited extract concerning St. Paul's teaching, but by what follows the last cited words, "We say that we are not separated from God, nor under His wrath; that God is always with us all, and we are His children by nature, therefore we are near and dear to him all our lives through. We know that we are not alone, because our Father is with us, and you can offer no friend, no services, no comforter, so good, and faithful, and true as He." We cannot doubt that the appellant advisedly contravenes the doctrine of a change of man's natural condition (in which the Church represents him to be subject to God's wrath), through the sacrifice of Christ offered to reconcile His Father to us, and that the 4th charge is therefore established. As regards the 5th charge against the appellant, we think that to assert that mankind needs no justification, or that salvation is not through justification, or that justification by faith is contrary to the teaching of Jesus Christ, is so plainly opposed to the very words of the 2nd and 11th Articles of Religion, that we need hardly cite them. We have the advantage of an authoritative exposition, if any were required, of the 11th Article of Religion, in the case of Heath v. Burder, before the Privy Council (15 Moo. P. C. 82; Freem. 235; 6 L. T. Rep. N. S. 562), where Lord Cranworth, in delivering judgment, says: "The evident meaning of the 11th Article is, that man is accounted righteous, which in the Article is treated as the same thing as being justified before God, not for his own merits, but for the merits of our Saviour by faith in Him-i.e., that man is admitted to the favour of God not for his own works, but for the merit of his Saviour and by faith in Him-i.e., by man's faith in our Saviour, howsoever faith is to be defined." The following extracts from the appellant's book appear to us clear contradictions of these Articles of Religion: "He" (meaning the Saviour) "never even hinted at such a doctrine as that of the fall of man, or the atonement by sacrifice or justification by faith. He never taught that men needed to be accounted righteous before God, or needed any mediator to propitiate His wrath, or to draw them to Himself. All these notions were Jewish, and Christ never gave any sanction or encouragement to them that I have been able to discover." And again: "Sincere sorrow for sin is enough to make a man quite reconciled and at peace with God; at least, so our Lord teaches. We do not therefore need any atonement nor any justification. We need no atonement, for God requires none." These six heads of charge complete the first of the three classes of charge, and we will proceed to the second classviz., those relating to alleged errors as to the Incarnation and Godhead of Christ. Five articles of charge (the 23rd to the 27th inclusive) allege these errors-first, that the appellant asserts (23rd article of charge), "That our Lord Jesus Christ is no more Very God of Very God, begotten, not

[PRIV. CO.

made, than we men are, contrary to the 2nd, 4th, and 8th of the Articles of Religion." Next, that he asserts (24th article of charge), "That the worship of Christ is idolatry, and is inconsistent with the worship of the true God, and that it is an instance of holding up our hands to a strange God, and outrivals the worship of the one true God, and draws away our highest homage and affection from God to another," contrary to the 1st, 2nd, and 8th Articles of Religion. Next, that he asserts (25th article of charge), "That the very idea of the Incarnation of the Son of God takes its rise in unbelief and springs out of absolute infidelity," contrary to the 2nd and 8th Articles of Religion. Next, that he asserts (26th article of charge), "That the expected return of Christ to judge the world takes its rise in unbelief, and springs only out of absolute infidelity, and that such expectation is unreasonable, is opposed to the simplicity of the love of God as a Father, and is calculated to overthrow the moral government of God," contrary to the 4th and 8th Articles of Religion. And lastly, that he asserts (27th article of charge), "That worship of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost is the worship of three Gods, and that the worship of the Son and of the Holy Ghost is idolatry, and that the belief in the Godhead of the Son and of the Holy Ghost, as expressed in the Nicene Creed, weakens and disguises the belief in one God the Father, and obliterates the true name of God," contrary to the 1st, 2nd, and 8th Articles of Religion. The Articles of Religion referred to in the above five articles of charge undoubtedly recognise the Godhead both of the Son and of the Holy Ghost as co-equal with that of the father, and recognises them as being with him one God (1st Article of Religion); that the Son took man's nature in the womb of the blessed Virgin of her substance, and that the Godhead of the Son and His manhood are united in Christ (2nd Article of Religion); that the Son ascended into heaven, and there sitteth until He returns to judge all men at the last day (4th Article of Religion); and the 8th Article of Religion says that the Nicene Creed, Athanasian Creed, and the Apostles' Creed are to be thoroughly received and believed. If, therefore, the last five articles of charge be proved, they are plainly repugnant to the Articles of Religion. We think it impossible to read the following passage or extract contained in the 21st article of charge without coming to the conclusion that the 6th charge against the appellant is made out: "And so God, the great unseen Creator, has wedded to Himself the great visible universe, and out of that mystical marriage has come as offspring the human family -a race of beings noble even as animals, but surpassing all we yet know of created life in being born of God-very God of very God-begotten not made, a statement as true of all of us as of Him who was called the first-born among many brethren." The extracts cited in the 21st article of charge in pp. 32 and 33 of the appendix, clearly describe the worship of Christ as idolatrous, and thus the 7th charge made in the 24th article of charge is also established. We may cite for this purpose the following, among other extracts, from pp. 33, 34: "At the time when Jesus Christ the Lord of men, appeared on earth, religious feelings towards God, in the hearts both of the Jew and Pagan, were such as to render impossible any repose in the bosom of the Creator. None could conceive of Him as even actuated by tender feelings, or as even guided

by laws of justice such as were common amongst men. So the Christ in His life of pity and kindness began to be worshipped and loved as infinitely nearer and dearer to human hearts than any Deity whom men had ever worshipped before. Not only was this perfectly natural, but under the circumstances it was infinitely creditable to mankind that they should worship and adore such a one as Christ was, instead of the Jehovah known to the Jews, and the Zeus and Jupiter known to the Greeks and Romans. Since the days of some of the Psalmists, their purer ideas of Jehovah had become miserably corrupted, and a whole system of propitiatory sacrifices had taken the place of their sensible and manly devotion. But as soon as ever the notion gained ground that Jesus Christ was engaged on man's behalf, in assuaging the Divine wrath, all the love and trust of men rushed in a torrent towards Him, and they were quite content (as well they might be) to adore their Redeemer, and leave their Creator further off than ever.

I do not wonder at this. The wonder would have been if men had not clung to Christ, if they had refused to worship so glorious a manifestation of Divine love and goodness. Yet, surely, this is not what Christ would have of us. I always thought that He came to bring us to God. Whatever else may be recorded in the Gospels, most surely it is there recorded that He said all he could say, and did all He could do, to make men feel the fatherly love of God for us all, to make known the Father in Heaven, and to win back affrighted men from their ghastly dread. Jesus Christ desired and pressed upon us all to worship the Father- His Father and our Father, His God and our God;'--and none will dare to say that He ever stepped in between men and their Maker to beguile their highest allegiance to Himself, to hide the Father's face, or to close the portals of the Father's home. Belief in all these miracles (meaning the miracles recorded in the New Testament), and in these angelic messages, and in these wonderful births was impossible, unless there had been first in men's minds belief in an absent God -in a God who was not immediately and constantly present in the world and among men. The very idea of incarnation itself, which means Deity coming from heaven, and dwelling in an individual man for some years, implies a belief that God does not, nor ever did, dwell in the hearts of all men. This belief, and a belief in other miracles, are not peculiar to Christianity; they are common to all the religions of the world. The Brahmins have their nine incarnations of Vishnu, which, in their way, are splendid conceptions of Divine love and sympathy." As regards the charge contained in the 25th article of charge, the last cited passage with reference to the incarnation is sufficient proof. As regards the charge contained in the 26th article of charge the following extract from p. 35 will suffice:-"But the Fatherhood of God strikes more deeply at the prevailing views than this. The common notion about the coming of a God into the world once, and His expected return to judge the world, turns entirely upon the belief in an absent God. It takes its rise in unbelief. These notions of a God coming to dwell amongst men in human form after thousands of years' absence from them, then departing, after a short life on earth, and not returning for thousands of years more, only spring out of absolute infidelity. Men must first be convinced that God is away from MAG. CAS.-VOL. VII.

[PRIV. CO.

As

them before they can adopt the idea that God has sent some one to visit them. And if that one Man who came was very God of very God in a sense in which all other men are not, His going away again after a short human lifetime, proves that absence still more painfully; and it cannot be wondered at that His return to earth should be looked for and longed for with the most passionate eagerness of the soul. If God could leave the long ages of human life deserted by Him before the coming of Christ, and then, after the little space of thirtythree years, could leave mankind again for thousands of years more in the same desolate desertion, then He is not the Father of men, and we might then question if He is even our friend." Indeed, the author in an extract contained in p. 24 (articles of charge, No. 9) candidly states, "I found that I could not hold to the true Fatherhood of God if I did not give up some of the doctrines of so-called Christianity. The doctrines of mediation, intercession, atonement, isolated incarnation, and the expected return of Jesus to earth are all, more or less, opposed to the perfect harmony and simplicity of the love of God as a Father." regards the 10th charge contained in the 27th article of the charge against the appellant, being the last of the general class relating to the Incarnation and Godhead of Christ, we think it is proved by the following passage, "Take away" (that is from the book of Common Prayer) "what we can most heartily join in, and the greater part, as well as the most important part, of the service would be expunged. For the sake of this, then, we may well bear for a time with the blemishes, weaknesses, and minor superstitions which the Church of Rome bequeathed to us when we parted company at the last reformation. We need not hesitate at the repetition of any creed which makes us say as its first words, I believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of Heaven and Earth, and of all things visible and invisible.' Any clause added thereto which seems to weaken or to disguise that first grand utterance may well be tolerated, considering the changing times in which we live, for the sake of the cardinal, and central and most vital principle upon which all the rest is, or is supposed to be, based." The four remaining charges against the appellant constitute the last general class of his alleged errors, viz., his depraving of scripture; and they are as follows:-That the appellant has promulgated, in derogation and depraving of Holy Scripture, the doctrine that the revelation of the knowledge of God by means of any book is impossible; that all true knowledge of God comes directly from the law of God written in men's hearts; that all knowledge of God comes only from men's own sense of what He requires them to do; and that the only true revelation possible by God to man is through the sense of God's presence, and is originated in the heart of man independently of God's written Word (31st article of charge). That he has asserted that in God's Word written, Holy Scriptures, and Holy Writ, there are found manifest, palpable, and irreconcileable contradictions, and many places which cannot be explained but so that they be repugnant to others (32nd article of charge). That he has asserted, in derogation and depraving of Holy Scripture, that the authority of the Gospel, according to St. John, is doubtful, and that the said Gospel ought not to be applied to establish any doctrine, and that whole chapters of the said Gospel are crowded

R