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:

I. That Christ has not made an atonement or reconciliation for sin, and has not made a sacrifice to reconcile the Father to us (10th art. of charge). II. That there is no need of any atonement, nor any place for such in the purpose of God (11th article of charge).

III. 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 article 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 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 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, 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 Christianized 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 that grow out of it. We want neither altar nor sacrifice, neither victim nor priest, no sprinkling of blood, nor 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 that 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 darkness. But then I know 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."

66

.....

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 3rd 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 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 appellant, indeed, constantly refers to his views as being different from generally received doctrine, and he 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

M

vicarious punishments 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 positions asserted in the Articles, and asserts other doctrines inconsistent with and repugnant to them.

We now proceed to consider the 4th and 5th charges made against the appellant, 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 article 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 only 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 e. 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 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 immense 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 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,' 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-that He will not hear our prayers, or forgive our sins until we have been baptized, 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