The Express.
London, England, 1861-12-20 00:00:00

orricz OF JUDOS FROMM= BY BIBHOP OP BALLSBURY V.

W D.
Dr. Deane resumed his arlLLlAM!,gumentD. this morning with the
indictment upon the Bth article, which was to the effect
that the defendant had advisedly maintained and affirmed
that in the books of the Old Testament, with the
exception of one or two doubtful passages, there
was no evidence of its being inspired, and no
evidence of the prognostication of future persons
and events. To meet this accusation he quoted
Bishop Louth's "Preliminary Dissertatiou' " with the view of
bringing Dr. Williams' within the ca referred to in " Heath
v. Bunny," that. • men might not be punished to-day for opi-
nionathathad pared unnoticed andAnchal lamed by persons in
authority in formerages, and also to show that crithasin of the
text was an open question, that tbe interpretation of the text
of it could be settled was an open question, and that the
very text itself as we received it, and still more as the
Hebrew original now was, sum but a translation of other
and older documents, and in many respects a faulty trans-
latiae. They were in fact dealing with the translation of •
translation, and the object of the prosecution yea to fetter
the true meaning of the original book, and the darkest
ages of Popish tyranny could not have attempted to
impose on the human understanding heavier fetters
than this. To the same book he referred to the
distinction between what was in the church genuine,
authentic, and canonical. Genuine was there defined to be
that which was written by the person whose name it bore
" authentic, having authority ;" and • writing might be
genuine though nct authentic, or authentic though the
word genuine could not be applied to it. Apocryphal
seemed to he opposed to authentic—a writing, in fact,
which was disallowed—and canonical was need in divinity
to mean part of the canons or collection of writings of divine
authority. With regard to the interpretation of the word
" inspired," Dr. Hay said some men had held that every
word of Scripture was inspired, and therefore the sacred
writers were mere instruments. This Warburton called
" inspiratiou," and ,•pustule's machines" were the
wee used by Dr. Williams, and objected to as heretical.
He should like to know how it could be heretical to speak of
passionless machines, and not heretical to speak of or-
ganic inspiration. The passage quoted in the Bth article
charged was asserted to be contrary to the 6th Article,
which was " Of the sufficiency of holy scriptures for salva-
tion." Now every article used in religion was not affirms-
tive, but negative. This article was directed against a well-
known existing error, but was not directed against all
questions which might hereafter arise in the church, and it
was directed, as every commentator bad agreed, against
traditions introduced by the church of Rome. The
7th Article was " Upon the Old Testament;" and he
could not find one single word in the passages extrected
from Dr. Williams's essay which could be regarded as in
any way opposed to that article. Warburton hail written
that the doctrine of future rewards and punishments was
not at first known amongst the Jews. and in that article
the Seventeenth Article was not contravened, because the
question raised was one which had not in that sense been
considered by those who drew up or the crown which
ratified the articles.

The Judge—Did I understand you distinctly to say that
Dr. Williams has never denied the two senses of prophecies 1
Dr. Deane aid Dr. Williams had never denied the sense
of prophecy In its fulfilment—that was in its samedary sense.
And upon this point of the inspiration of prophecy he
referred to the passage in St. Luke's, Gospel, that it
behoved Christ to suffer and to rise from the dead on
the third day, there being no prophecy in the Oki Testament
in which the rising on the fourth day was foretold. He did
not throw the slighteet doubt on the 24ta chapter of St.
Luke, but this only showed the danger of taking • pamage
which the church *had appointed to be read on a particular
day, and holding that every word of that peonage was to be
judged in its literal sane, without any examination whether
it had been so written or not. In the same way there us
no prophecy known distinctly announcing that Christ should
be called &Nazarene, and the Hebrew word which had been
translated "Nazarene," might be, u had been affirmed,
translated with the same accuracy a branch or flower.
The Judge hoped it would not be for •moment understood
that be was going to try theft mime questions of divinity.
Of course it was quite open to Dr Deane to show that such
and such opinions had been entertained, without reproof, in
the church by eminent divines ; and it the learned counsel
showed that his client had only entertained the same
opinions it would bring him into the position in the cue of
" Border v. Heath."

Dr. Deane seas certainly not going to ask the court to
pass judgment on any one of them, but he desired to show
that the opinions condemned in the case of Dr.
Williams had been held even with approbation
by others before him. The 9th article charged
Dr. Williams in the first place with "distinguishing the man
David from the Book of David," and in bringing the fetter
as low as the reign of the Epiphanes the author only fel-
' lowed the admitted necessities of the ease. But the whole
quoted gave the explanation of the opinion, not of
passage quoted
but of Baron Bunsen, and it was Baron
Sancta who distinguished the m.in David from
the book. The date of the book, however, proved the position
asserted, and surely a clergyman whose knowledge led him
to that °occlusion was not to be placed in the position that
be mast oontrailict his knowledge to be convicted of the
rit ignorance before his congregation,
Williams,r must render
mt:ilif liable to a charge of heresy. Dr. W again,
had never mid that Jonah was not an historical person ; and
not only had he not said so, but had distinctly stated the
contrary in his sermons. Another charge was that he bad
said that the Book of Jonah, incorporated is the Old Testa-
ment, weenerer written by him. He (Dr. Deane) could produce
a flood of authorities that in another instance the book was
not written by the person whose name it took. The Poeta.
touch could not have been entirely written by Moms, for it
contained an account of his death, and was the person to be
regarded as a heretic who disputed that Moses was the
writer of the whole ? Nobody would couteed that the
Book of Ruth was written by Ruth, and he would
ask who wrote the Book of Job? But Dr. Williams
had never said that the Book of Jonah was not
written by Jonah. Taking the 10th article, the
indictment was misunderstood, miscited, and mischarged,
and the opinion expressed was one that there was no an-
thority whatever for. Dr. Williams had never said that
the authority of Scripture was not binding upon the church,
nor had he Said that the Epistle to the Hebrews was not
part of the Holy Scriptures, and as such binding on the
1 church. Whet he had said was, that Baron Bun•
sea thought the Epistle was not written by
St. Paul, and in his (Dr. Williams') own judgment,
it bore traces of being poet academic. Dr, Arnold was ad-
mitted to Holy Orders after admitting t list the authenticite
of the Epistle to the Hebrews was en open question, ail
surely Dr. Williams was not a heretic by the opinion he bol
expressed upon that Epistle or upon tha Second Epistle J.
Peter. Again, with regard to the Revolutions of St. John,
If every clergyman who gave en opioion as to the
interpretation of the Revelations were prosecuted as a
heretic, the Judge of the Court of Arches would be of all
judges the mast sitting and the most patient. The com•
plated of the Ilth article was on account of the opinion that
" the deluge takes the place among geological phenomena,
no longer a disturbance of law from which science Arias
but a prolonged play of the foram of tire and water, reader•
Sag the primmval region of North Asia uninhabitable, sod
urging the natives to new abodes," but on reference 13
the book itself it would be seen that these opi•
Mons were again the opinions of the author, and not d
the reviewer, and the same was the fact with regent to the
descriptions quoted of the flight of the children of lead
from Egypt, and the passage of the Red Sea. But he ha
sever heard that the present Dean of St. Paul's had eser
been accused of being a heretic because upon this very pie
titular .1 the flight from Egypt he hell espremi
an opinion similar to that of Baron Bunsen;
and a miracle might surely not be lees a mi•
cede because the Almighty willed to firing tt
about by human means. But he would put to the court
these question,. Were the statements of the Bible alto-
gethei so blasphemous, that merely to cite them, abridge
them, or review them was a crime that that court woull
punish, and were comments made by such a person al Biros
Bunsen riot to be noticed or reviewed by a clergyman
the Church of England? For whom was this re
view written? If it had been written 100 yell
ago it would have been written iu Latin. bat
we have left a now the habit of bringing these difficult
questions forward in what Gibbon described as the decades
of the dead language. Was it, then, at w time when slid
theorises as these were started by Baron Bungee, the greatest
scholar, perhaps, of his day, that a cleraman, for a boot
written for the study of learned persons upon those theories
should be punished as a heretic? Was the description d
the deluge itself so clear that no second interpretationcoail
be given to it? Where were "the windows of heaves i.-.$
" opened r Were "the fountains of the great deep' by;
rally "broken up ?" This was the language of retry. 'I
did not shut out the researches of science, nor did seiesa
deny the operation of God's interference in bringing shoat
the flood.