beginning, and the best interpreters of a law are those who lived when the law was given. As an instance of a prophecy that had failed, Jowett cited Jeremiah's predictions concerning Jehoiakim that he should have none to sit upon the throne of his father David, but his son Jehoiachin reigned in his stead. Wordsworth answered that he only reigned a quarter of a year, and so did not sit upon the throne, did not permanently reign. The prophecy therefore was not a failure.

The root of all the Greek Professor's errors is that he does not believe in the inspiration of the Scriptures. Inspiration means infallibility. If the documents are not free from error, we have no authority for the doctrines contained in them. Inspiration had never been defined by any ecclesiastical authority because it had always been settled. 'Out of Egypt have I called my son,' is an instance of a passage having more meanings than one. It proves the falsity of the principle that Scripture has only one meaning. When an inspired writer interprets, we are bound to receive his interpretation. It is presumption for a nineteenth century essayist to contradict an Evangelist's interpretation of a Hebrew prophecy. The learning of heretics is about as bad as their good works. But for the position of the writers, this book would never have emerged from obscurity. It fights against the Church clad in the Church's uniform, the Trojan horse bearing within the armour of the Greeks. The case of Bahrdt, a German theologian, who led an immoral life, and died a miserable death, is a warning to all who, like the Regius Professor of Greek, depart from the old paths and disregard the authority and the creeds of the Church.

John William Burgon afterwards Dean of Chichester, refuted all the seven Essayists. He wrote from the standpoint of one who believed in the full infallible inspiration of every word and syllable in the Bible, and that the Church clergy alone had a commission to preach the gospel. He found clergymen writing against the creeds they had subscribed, the doctrines they were pledged to teach, and the infallibility of the Bible on which all rested. The first Essay contained

allegory was worthless, and had all the faults of a school-boy's theme. Instead of the faith once delivered to the Saints, we were to have the education of the human race. The other Essayists were infidels, who believed in neither God nor Bible. Burgon smote the 'seven champions,' some one facetiously said with the 'jaw-bone of an ass.'

Williams and Wilson were prosecuted and condemned in the Court of Arches on five of thirty-two charges. They appealed to the Privy Council. Two of the five charges were withdrawn by the prosecutors. There remained three on which the Privy Council had to pronounce judgment; inspiration, future punishment, imputed righteousness, or the transfer of merit. On the first it was found that the XXXIX Articles had not defined inspiration. On the second, that the original word translated 'everlasting' was ambiguous, and that there was nothing in the formularies which made it penal for a clergyman to express a hope that even the ultimate pardon of the wicked who are condemned in the day of Judgment, may be consistent with the will of God. On the third it was found that the Articles were wholly silent.

So the judgment of the Court of Arches was reversed. This declared the liberty which exists in the Church of England for free handling of the Bible, for a wide definition of inspiration, and for leaving open the question of never ending punishment.1

The High Church and Evangelical parties had united to seek the condemnation of the Essayists. Each found the other to be a brother born for adversity.' Dr Pusey rushed into the arms of the Record, and Archdeacon Denison embraced Dr McCaul. Then, it was said, was fulfilled that which was spoken by the Evangelist from that day Herod and Pontius Pilate were friends.' Wickedly were the words of the Gibeonites to David put into their lips, 'Let seven men of his sons be delivered unto us and we will hang them up unto the Lord, in Gibeah of Saul.'

It was difficult to hang, after the law had pronounced an acquittal. Still much could be done. There was a scheme for endowing the Greek professorship which was held by

1 Williams did not deny never-ending punishment, and Wilson

Jowett. This was successfully opposed. A petition protesting against the judgment was got up by Dr Pusey, and the clergy were implored to sign it for the love of God." Convocation passed a synodical judgment on the book, and after saying all they could say, they did all they could do, which was nothing. The two Archbishops issued Pastorals to quiet the fears of the clergy and laity. Meanwhile Cardinal Wiseman in the hope of turning the balance in favour of his own Church, claimed that it had authoritatively decided on the question of inspiration and the never-ending duration of hell fire, which he called 'vital doctrines of the sacred deposit.' But he was unable to show that on these two subjects the Church of Rome had ever spoken with authority any more than the Church of England.2

It got the signatures of 11,000 chiefly of the lower orders of the clergy. 2 See Stanley on The Three Pastorals.

CHAPTER XV

WRITERS OF ESSAYS AND REVIEWS

THE writer of the first Essay is at present Bishop of London. His sermons preached at Rugby do not contain much theology, and still less anything that might be considered heresy. The ever-recurring idea is the supremacy of conscience. The voice within speaks with authority and calls upon us to believe its claim. It says 'that above and beyond and beneath all that exists or can exist is the unchangeable law of right and truth and goodness.' To believe and to obey this voice is faith. The power which breathes through the Bible meets its answer in the heart of man. Those who believe not Moses or the prophets will not be convinced by a miracle. The difficulty of belief in spiritual truth is not outside, it is within. Though the Bible has this power, we are not to suppose that the Bible was dictated by God Himself. It is written in human language and the thoughts are human, but it has an indwelling 'divine authority unlike anything else which the world has ever seen.'2 Our conception of the Bible may have to be modified, but this power to reach the conscience of man will ever remain. In 1884, Bishop Temple was Bampton Lecturer. His subject was the relation between religion and science. The special object was to show the bearing of the Darwinian doctrine of evolution on theology. Having virtually assumed that this doctrine was established, it was applied to the argument from design. Paley said that a watch proves a watchmaker. He doubtless

supposed everything to come into existence as it now is, but supposing evolution, his argument is still good. We have only to think of design being worked out by a slow process instead of by a direct act of creation. Paley had in a way prepared for this application of his argument. He said that the evidence of design was not less if it were found that the watch produced another watch like itself. Certainly it is not lessened if, on the principle of evolution, it produces one better than itself. It had been objected to Paley's argument that it represents the Almighty as contending to overcome difficulties with intractable materials; but the idea of evolution removes this objection. It is more worthy of the majesty of God that He did not make the things, but caused them to make themselves. Evolution supplies an answer to the objection from the imperfections of the world. These are like the imperfections of a half-completed picture. Evolution, too, gives the idea of unity, and so one designer, not many, as might have been inferred from mere design. It corresponds also with the development of revelation, which is progressive. Evolution does not account for the introduction of life. Here is room for miracle. The record in Genesis was not to teach science but great spiritual and moral lessons. It takes the facts of nature as they appear to ordinary people. Miracles are explained as after all probably in harmony with the uniformity of nature, and in the strictest sense not miracles. To those who saw Christ's miracles they were evidence, but to us the main evidence of revelation consists in its harmony with the voice of the spiritual faculty within us.

Rowland Williams1 had been in trouble some time before the publication of Essays and Reviews.' In 1855 he had published a volume of sermons under the title of 'Rational Godliness.' These sermons had been preached, some of them at Cambridge and others at Lampeter. They were severely criticised by the orthodox journals, while they inspired great hopes in those who were looking for liberal progress in theology. The best key to Dr Williams' position is in his doctrine concerning the Church. With no tendency to either Romanism or Tractarianism he might, in a sense, be called a High Churchman. The Church was the embodied repre