The Express.
London, England, 1862-12-16 00:00:00

Zite enrreoo.

TO 0011.B.CiPONDINTS.
deartieentente Intended for " The Ewer" London lhening
raper, most be at thelo, Bouveria-aireet, by Two
o'clock on the day of publication.

COVENT OAPJA.N.
THIs rearree, LOVICS TRIUMPH. Miss Louisa Fyne
and Madame Laara Raster Messrs. O. Perna W. H.
Webs, H. Corti. Araby Cook. and W. Katrina—Conductor,
Mr. A. Melba—Commence at S.

HAYMARKET.
Tuts EYEN/NO, DUCK IItNIING. Mr. Compton.—OUß
AMAKICAN COUSIN. Means. *Moen, Barkaams; Mrs.
K Fitz, DAY AFTER THit WEDDING. MIA
Harlleur.—And MY HUSBAND'S GHOST.—Commence at 7.

BRITANNIA.
Tnis Memo, BOMB BELLS THAT RANG AN OLD YEAR
OUT AND A NEW ONE IN.—Elnging by the Neapolitan
Minstrels and Mr. Randall—Dancing by %Mlle. Stephan.--CAST
ON THE MERCY OF THE WORLD.—And DAVID HUNT.

MGR WWI( AT GuNDON Illtll)G/L
Ms DA Morning, Bh. 45n. . _Afternoon. 95. 201 a.
..noalow--Morning. 9h. 50a2..... Anima's. 106. Wm.

LONDON, TUESDAY, DECEMBER 16.

THE proceedings in the Court of Arches yester.
day may be considered either as they affect the two
respondents, the Rev. Dr. ROWLAND WILLIAMS and
the Rev. 11. B. Wiraos, or as they advance the solu-
tion of the many grave and difficult ecclesiastical
questions raised by the promoters of the respective
suits. The judgment pronounced by Dr. LUSH-
INGTON some months ago on the merits of
the case made it plain that a sentence of
some kind must follow, and the business of the
Judge yesterday was to take notice of anything
that might be brought before him as a reason
for mitigating its severity. It appeared from
the statements of Dr. WiLmairs's counsel yester-
day that the rev. respondent had been misunder-
stood on some points on which he had been con-
demned by the Court. Thus Dr. WILLIAMS does
not deny, as his opponents allege, the Divine
source and origin of all that the Bible contains
pertaining and necessary to salvation. Nor does
he acknowledge as his own the opinion of BUNSEN,
which he had expounded, respecting propitiation ;
on the contrary, he bolds the offering of Cimuirr
to be the one perfect sacrifice and propitiation for
the sins of the world. Re equally repudiates the
low form of the doctrine of justification imputed
to him—the belief that justification means the
peace of mind that comes from trust in a righteous
GOD. These interpretations of his opinions he
bad disavowed by his responsive allegations, de-
claring of some of them that they were merely
statements of BUNSEN'S opinions, in which he did
not share, and of others that they were forced and
unwarranted inferences from his own writings.
For a moment, yesterday, it seemed as if s
compromise might have put an end to the
case, but there still remained one point, the
nature of the inspiration of the Bible, upon which
no concession could be made. On that profound
and mysterious subject, the influence which the
Divine Spirit exerted on the minds of the writers
of the Sacred Books, the learned Judge had laid
down, and declared to be part of the doctrine of
the Church of England, a theory which the moat
orthodox received with surprise. Dr. WILLIAMS
bad stated his belief that the Bible, although
rational in substance, is Divine in its origin.
The expressions in which he had characterized the
participation of reason in the process of inspira-
tion were held, however, by Dr. LUSHINGTON to be
contrary to the Articles, and upon this point a
sentence was inevitable. The Queen's Advocate,
as counsel for the Bishop of SALISBURY, urged that
it was the business of the Court to say what
was the meaning of the passages in Dr. WIL-
LIAMS'S writings which had been objected to ;
those passages had been legally condemned, and he
asked that either Dr. WILLIAMS should publicly
recant his error, or that the Court should anspend
him from his office and benefice until he should do
so. Dr. LUBMINOTON said that in the exercise
of his judicial discretion he should pass such a son-

tence as the Privy Council might be expected to
sustain. A very grave offence had been committed,
the Articles of the Church had been impugned,
and he had to pass a sentence with the twofold ob-
ject of punishing an individual and protecting the
Church. He declined to adopt the suggestion of

the Queen's Advocate and suspend the respondent
until he should recant, and for a reason which is
very remarkable :—" Such a sentence might, in
" fact, have the effect of forcing a defendant, by
" a deficiency of pecuniary means, to make a re-
" traction which did not come from the Earl." The
sentence which Dr. LUSHINOTON pronounced was
that Dr. WILLLIAIS should be suspended ab officio
et beneficio for one year, and that he should pay
the costs. We suppose that even Dr. WILLIAMS'S
warmest friends would not say that, supposing
the judgment to be right, the sentence is severe.
He has, however, appealed against both, and the
case will, therefore, be taken before the Judicial
Committee of the Privy Council.
We have always been of the opinion of the
Bishop of LONDON, that prosecutions of this kind
do not promote the interests of the Church. Once
begun, however, it is desirable for the sake of peace
that they should be carried on until the points in
issue have been decided by the very highest
authority. The Judicial Committee will have a
twofold task ; they will have to consider and pro-
nounce whether the Court of Arches has put a
fair and legal meaning on the words of Dr. Wu,-
Lusts, and also whether it has rightly understood
the standards by which it has tiled his language.
Of the two questions the second is infinitely the
more important. But whatever the decision of
the court of appeal, there are results of
this prosecution already realized of the
utmost consequence. The decision of the
Judicial Committee will leave unaffected those
enormous developments of the freedom of teaching
within the Church which were authoritatively de-
clared by the Court of Arches in the judgment