The Express.
London, England, 1862-12-15 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.
(THIS DAY.)

ARCHES COURT, WESTMINSTER
(Before Dr. Lushingtoe.)
ESSAYS AND REVIEWS.

BISHOP OP NALISLAIRT V. WILLIAIIB.-PINDALL P. WILSON.

The further bearing of these mess mane ou at 11 o'clock
this morning.

The Queen's Advocate MI Mr. Coleridge appeared for
the plaintiffs; and Dr. Deane and Mr. Stephens for the
defendants.

The Queen's Advocate briefly recapitulated the previous
proceedings, including the rejection of some of the
articles, and the reforming of others. All that was
requisite had been admitted, sod the question was now
ripe for his lordabip's judgment. The let article, as it now
stood, was the seventh. The learned counsel thee cited
purger from Dr. Williams's work, repeating the views of
Bunsen in reference to the ancient Scriptures, including
the declaration that inspiration is "the written voice
of the congregation," passages which the prosecutor
contended were contrary to the 6th, 7th, and 19th articles.
In citing Bunsen's opinions the author expressed no dis-
sent from them, and his lordship had expressed his dis-
approval of the essayist's conduct in that respect, because
under cover of citing a clergyman might publish forth an
infidel work. The positions laid down were inconsistent
with the doctrine of the Church of England, that
the Bible was God's written word. la another
article, which was now the Bth, were cited from
the eery the words " Propitiation would be the
recovery of that peace which cannot be while sin divides
us from the Searcher of hearts" Hie lordship had declared
that that passage was contrary to the 91st article of the
church. The next article was the 9th, which was originally
the 15th, and with regard to this his lordship had declared
that the views cited with respect to justification by faith were
inconsistent with the 11th article of the church. Ile then
quoted at considerable length from that part of the judg.
meet which condemned the views of Dr. Williams in
reference to the Holy Scriptures. Upon three points—
the question of inspiration, the question of propi-
tiation, and the question of justification—Dr. Wil-
liams had, according to his lordship's judgment, clearly
contravened the doctrines of the church. Proceedings of
this kind had a double object —the reformation of the indi-
vidual and the protection of the church ; and
looking to either of these objects, he (the
Queen's Advocate) contended that the sentence
in this cue ought to be of a very grave character,
Is the case of " Boarder v. Heath," the defendant was
convicted on four points ; and in the present case the
defendant hail been convicted on two of the same poicts. If
the Bishop of Salisbury had 'been minded to bring these
proceedings under the general statute of Elizabeth, the
court would have had no option but that of depriving the
defendant in the event of his refusing to retract. It was
not the Bishop of Salisbury's desire to place the
defendant is that position ; his object was, not to punish
the defendant, but to protect the church. What he (the
Queen's Advocate) wished the court to do then was to per
a sentence of suspension, until the defendant had eignided
that he retracted his errors. There was authority for this in
the judgment pronounced in the case of Mr. Oakley.
The responsive plea of Dr. Williams might relieve the
court from the pain of passing sentence upon him. He
then stated that the passages which the court had marred
were really the opinions of Baron Basses and not his ;
and if that were the case it was now open to Dr. Wil-
li/true to retract those passages, and if he took that
course no one would rejoice more then the Bishop of Salis-
bury. It was not competent to Dr. Williams to attach a
meaning to the passages inconsistent with that put upon
them by the court; the only course open to him was to
withdraw them ; and, after the long and patient hearing of
the oar, he earnestly hoped Dr. Williams would formally
and straightforwardly withdraw all those passages which had
been formally censured. In that case the court would be
saved from the pain of passing sentence on the defendant.
Mr. Coleridge. Q.C., followed ee the seine side.
Dr. Dear said if there could be found in one single
pa sage of Dr. Williams's essay an expression denying the
divine authority of the Bible in all matters relating to the
salvation of mankind, he should feel in a very different po-
sition from that which he occupied. For the prosecutor
be (Dr. Deane) felt the greatest respect, and he rejoiced
that out of so many charges affecting the peace and secu-
rity of the Church of England, so few remained. What
was before dim and indistinct now stood out clear and de-
finite in the judgment of the court. In every aspect
the case was a new one, and as a new one he
would argue it. It could never be contended that
because • clergyman used the words of St. Paul or St.
Peter he was to be condemned before the court. He would
take the words of the articles and the words of Dr. Wil-
liams, sod show that they were not contradictory. As re-
garded the authority of scripture, there was a clear
admission on Dr. Williams's part that the divine thought
brought order out of confusion. It might he answered that
in the passage charged on that subject he used the word
" reason." Was " reason" so human a term that in using
it • man denied divine authority? The word " lo"
was by some translated reason. If the defendant
bad spoken of the Bible as "the expression of
divine reams," instead of "the expression of devout
reason," no one could have objected to the phrase.
The meaning of "devout" given in every dictionary was
" religious ;" and was Dr. Williams to be condemned for
using the word " devout" instead of " divine r The pas-
sage in question referred not to the New, bat to the Old
Testament. No man who slid not admit inspiration would
hare called Abraham, "the friend of God ;" or Moses,
"the inspired patriot;" or Elijah, "the preacher of the
still small voice ;" or Jeremiah, "the foreseer of a law
written on the conscience." In these four instances there was
a distinct admission of the inspiration of God's spirit in the
Oldff eittament. As respected the declaretion that the Bible was
"the written voice of the roogregatioo," he could find no dif-
ferenoe except in number, between those words and the words
of one of the apostles. " Holy men of God 'make as they
were moved by the Holy Ghost." Again in one article of
the church was found the phrase, " God's word written,"
and is another, " the preached word of God." Dr. Wil-
liams admitted in the fullest sense the inspiration of holy
'milkers, but he had extended it by saying that the inept-
ration of Cod in a certain sense was continued in atoordanoe
with the apostle's words, " In him welly., and move, and have
our being." Let them take care that they did not contradict
the doctrine of the Church of England that apart from God's
Spirit man could not have one holy thought. Supposing
the essay wonld have been better without the illustration
of Luther and Milton ; was a man to be punished for • had
illustration? The judgment of the court on this point was
that no cletgyrese was bound to hold as inspired passages
those which were not, necessary to salvation, sod Oust was
clearly in favour of Dr. Williams. In saying that the Bible
was "the written voice of the tun," the defendant
did not say it was no more. The learned counsel then
entered into a similar argument with respect to Dr. Wil-
liams's views of toe doctrine of propitiation.
[At the request of the learned counsel the court adjourued
for ten minutes.]
(in the learned judge resuming him seat,
Dr. Deane rid that during his lordship's absence counsel
had endeavoured to settle the case.
The Queen's; Advocate protested against any partial state-
ment of what had occurred.

Dr. Deane said there was one passage on which the de-
fendant must have the judgment of the court.
The Queen's Advocate said io that we the proposed
aettlerneut was at an end and nothing should be raid as to
what had passed in private. Mr. Stephen made proposi-
tion he (the Queen's Advocate) thought might be enter
Mined. and thereupon he himself submitted to the de-
fendant'. counsel an offer which it new appeared was
not accepted.
Dr. Deane then continued his argument.
Mr. Stephen, who followed, stated that Dr. Williams bad
authorised him loser that be was willing to withdraw the
condemned passages from Baron Bunsen's writings, and to
declare that he did not agree with them. If the court
should accept that offer, the only point on which be
could be condemned was that relating to the
hiseiration of the Bible. All that the deferglaut bad been
guilty of wee io fact the use of incautious expressions, which
he now repudiat ri.
The Queen'e Advocate, in reply, expressed his deep regret
that be. Williams had not, in accordance with his soma.
800, withdrawn all the illegal passages.
Dr. Lushiegton then pronounced Jeocsigsr. It was
that Dr. Williams be suspended ab officio et beneficio for the
term of on.year, the learned judge adding that the defendant
roust of course pay the costs of the proceedings.
Notice was immediately given of appeal to the Privy
Council

The case of Fendsll r. Wilson wu proceeding when our
report left.

CENTRAL CRIMINAL COURT.

(THIS DAY.)

The December session of the Central Criminal Conti
"I opened this morning before the Right Hoe. the
Lord Mayor. the Common Serjeast. Alderman W. Lawrence,
Alderman Allen. Aldermen Lakin, Alderman and Sheriff J.
C. lA‘rtnce, Mr. Sheriff Jones, Mr. Under• Sheriff Mack-
Tell, Mr. CaderSheriff Ferrer. to., to.
It ',ewers by the first edition of the calendar that
there are 96 prisoners for trial at the present sessios,
but there are three or four others on bail. The
Common Serjeant, in his charge to the grind jury,