The Sun.
London, England, 1862-01-13 00:00:00

ESSAI S AND REVIEWS.

The case of the Bishop of Salisbury v. Dr. Wil-
liams was resumed on Saturday morning in the
Arches Court, before Dr. Lushington.
Dr. Phillimore continued the consideration of the
11th article, meeting the account of the deluge
given by Dr. Williams by the words of Genesis, in
which that event is referred to. In the same way
the smiting of the Assyrians was supported by the
text of Holy Writ, and the extract from the Essay
in reference to this point only showed the careless.
ness of Dr. Williams, who, as he was wrong in his
quotations from Paley, was equally wrong in his
citations frem Scripture, for the " visible angel"
was mentioned in the account given in the Book of
Kings, and there was not, therefore, the discrepancy
between the descriptions of Kings and Chronicles
which Dr. Williams attributed. The words of
Scripture were also sufficient to convict Dr. Wil-
liams for his opinions regarding the smiting of the
firstborn, the passage of the Red Sea, and the offer-
ing up of Isaac, and in regard to the first-mentioned
of thesq events, Dr. Phillimore declared the inter-
pretation of the essayist to be untenable, from the
improbability that the Bedouin host, if they were
the destroyers, should select for destruction the first
born. Again, there was no authority whatever
for saying that it was in obedience to Molech, the
author of the fierce ritual of Syria, that Abraham
was about to sacrifice his son. Upon this point Dr.
Warburton had been quoted in support of Dr.
Williams's opinion. According to his (Dr. Philli-
more's) view, the decisions in the Gorham case and
in the case of Burder v. Heath would not justify
Dr. Williams by the words quoted from Dr.
Warburton, even if those words would bear the
construction (put upon them, for it had
never been said that an isolated opinion in a
book of orthodoxy could sanction a gross heresy.
But the fact was that Dr. Warburton's argument
was that not only was this the most important and
divine historical record, and he had carried it even
further than others had done, for he said that
the three days that Abraham remained in Mount
Moriah was also typical of the Saviour. Under the
next article, with the extracts quoted before him,
no one could doubt that Dr. Williams denied that
salvation was purchased by the bodily pangs of
Christ ; and could any rational being doubt for a
moment that this language was inconsistent with
the awful language of -the Litany, and struck at
the root of the doctrine of the sufferings of our
Lord having purchased man's redemption ? And
in this, as in the following articles relating to the
New Testament, the learned counsel submitted that
no clergyman had a right, with such levity and
carelessness as Dr. 'Williams had done, to leave the
awful mysteries to which he referred to appear
contradictory to the formularies of the Church of
England and the plain teaching of the Bible, and
then to come into a court of justice to suggest a
method by which the obvious meaning of his words
might be explained away. The learned counsel,
after remarking that the articles were divided under
two heads, the one relating to God's Word written,
and the other to the cardinal doctrines of the
Church of Christ, concluded his address in these
words :—" With respect to the former, we contend
that while the Church has wisely abstained from
giving any definition of inspiration, she has most
rightly and most clearly excluded that sense which
would be bringing down the Bible to the level of a
poem written by Milton, or a sermon composed by
Luther. With regard to the second division, we
contend that while the Church has left to ordained
ministers full liberty to criticise the text and inves-
tigate the history of Holy Writ, she has not ac-
corded to them the license of denying all the his-
torical facts according to the fancy of each particu-
lar minister, with the truth of which the great
doctrines of our salvation, all that gives dignity to
the
are
ni life, andtr
iva
bh
loyp
ae n tdo
for t the ee
vdeerabt
oh a on
fd
ua p Christian These
are m
thean
positions we contend for. Their legal soundness or un-
soundness are about to be submitted to the rude but
necessary criterion of the adnaissibility of these
articles in the Court of the Archbishop of Canter-
bury. It is said that these positions are the rPsult
of vulgar clamour. Among the raisers of that vul-
gar clamour are the whole episcopate of England,
and 9,500 clergymen whose petition I now hold in
my hands. It is said that by these proceedings we
shall strip the Church:of her learning. In my hum-
ble opinion that argument is idle—that alarm is
without foundation. Within the liberties of these
her formularies the mightiest intellects of England
—the greatest writers and thinkers which have ever
adorned the literature of this or any other country
in Christendom—have been expressed. In the much
the essay before us there is
g of
rival of the exploded heresies and
nothing vaunted
but
trtnhine
discarded evidences of the earlier heretics and the
later infidels. But if it were otherwise, if it were
true, as we experimentally know it to be false, that
by establishing the admissibility of these articles we
should have an unlearned church, better, I say, to
have a church which in the opinion of some may not
be learned than a church which in the opinion of
all must be dishonest. Better would it be—a thou-
sand times better, at the risk of any religious con-
vulsion—that the canons, the articles, the fotmula-

..es-of--the church should be
new legislation than that it
ing to the theory of this gent.
this description, containing most
and the plainest engagements, but engagements and
obligations the subscription to which may, in z.
manner equally destructive to the faith and the
morals of the people of this country, both clergy
and laity, be set at naught by the most disingenuous
sophistry and the most palpable untruth."
Mr. Coleridge, Q.C., followed on the same side,
and stated his intention of confining his argument
to a comparison of the published opinion of Dr.
Williams with the legal documents of the church,
which had the authority not only of the church but
of the Parliament of this country. He then proceeded
to quote a number of additional authorities, includ-
ing Du Cange's Glossary on the word canon, and the
"Ecclesiastical Polity" of Hooker. In his second
book Hooker was commenting on the notion which
was now called " bibliolatry," namely, that as Holy
Scripture contained all things necessary to salva-
tion, nothing but the bare letter of the Bible was
required as a rule of faith and practice. No doubt
there were many passages in Hooker's second book,
that, taken away from their context and from the
main argument of the work, might seem to make
for his learned friends ; but they were not really
contrary to those which had been quoted for the
promoter, and did not in the slightest degree impugn
the absolute perfection of Scripture, for the ends to
which it was designed, its inspiration and paramount
authority. The Church of England had declared
that there were certain limits within which she
allowed no private judgment whatever, although
without those limits she gave her members, whether
lay or clerical, the fullest liberty of inquiry. For
example, disputed texts, or the authorship of the
Epistle to the Hebrews, were topics:on which she
permitted the utmost latitude of discussion, but she
did not allow the canonicity or the inspiration of
any canonical book to bo called in open question.
He did not term the Church of England an infalli-
ble Church, but she was doubtedly an authoritative
one. If a clergyman came to a conclusion other
than that which she indicated she said to him,
" Whether you are right is knovin only to God, but
you cannot h old your opinions and also your living."
As to this Epistle to the Hebrews, .Nlessrs,cony.
I)etire,lind Howson in 'their itooni; f
a:l4 ifiblikeb766k rik-410 - • •• .
aneuiishii there had, doubt, or as To
,whote inspiration there had been less. There had
also, it was quite true, been a discussion as to the
authorship of the Apocalypse—whether St. John
the Apostle, or even John Mark, had been the writer
of it, but there had never been the slightest doubt
as to the canonicity of the book itself. There was
no one for whom it was possible for him (Mr. Cole-
ridge) to have more respect than for Dr. Arnold.
No doubt in his younger days Dr. Arnold felt so
much of doubt that ho had had great hesitation in tak-
ing orders ; but those scruples had been removed
as his judgment grew more ripe, and there was no
reason whatever for thinking he had ever questioned
that the Epistle to the Hebrews was a portion of
the sacred Scriptures. No one, in fact, who had
ever enjoyed the blessing of five minutes' conversa-
tion with Dr. Arnold could ever believe that he bad
the slightest doubt about the authority of the epistle,
whatever opinion he might hold as to its date or
authorship. The learned counsel then protested
strongly against the idea that Bishop Butler could.
be claimed as an authority on the other side. Only
fancy Hooker and Butler being told that they would
ever be quoted to show that Luther and Milton had
received an inspiration—differing it might be in de-
gree—but an inspiration identical in kind with that
of the prophets and apostles. Could any one doubt
that such an idea would have been repudiated by
them with the utmost indignation and horror ? But
if it was not contended that they thought Luther
and Milton inspired in the biblical sense, to what
end were passages from their works distorted from
their context and clothed with a meaning that their
authors never intended? It might be asked how
inspiration was to be defined ? He answered in the
language of a celebrated French Protestant cler-
gyman recently deceased (Adolphe Monod), namely,
that it was impossible to know how the Spirit of
God and the spirit of man could be so combined as
to make the Bible at once a Divine Word, higher
than the heavens, and a human word brought home
to ourselves. In fact it was just as inexplicable as
the union of the divine and human nature in the
person of Christ. In the eighth article it was
alleged that Dr. Williams had contended not only
that there was no predictive element in the pro-
phets, but that a man was a fool that believed
there was, and that if we retained our miserable
insular prejudices in favour of inspiration, it was
only our being out of the bearing of German ridicule
that prevented us from drowning ourselves in the
Thames. But, it was surely not open to any clergy-
man to contend that the prophecies of Scripture con-
tained no real predictions, and that if any passages;
appeared to be such, they were to be accounted for
in the same manner as Pagan prophecies which
seemed to foretell future events, but were really
nothing but wise sayings or chance expressions
which had been verified by the result. The greatest
hook on this subject vas-Dean Lyall's "Prout-crlia --
Prophetica," which, consisted of his Boyle lectures.
It was a work which he ventured to think had not
yet received its due meed of praise, but which to a
lawyer's mind was very charming to read. That
work was designed to show that the Founder of OUT
religion and his disciples had relied chiefly on the
prophets in proof of His mission. In the first ages
the gospel presented no one feature which could
have been relied on as affording grounds for hoping
its ultimate success. Nevertheless a miraculous cha-
racter had been impressed upon it by the prophetic
declarations contained in the Old Testament ; and it
prospered in spite of obstacles that might well have
been regarded as insurmountable. In fact, the great
argument of all the primitive Christian apologists
was the wonderful prcgress the faith had made, and
the concurrence of that actual state of things with
the predictions of the sacred writers. Such was
also Dean Lyall's argument, and the learned coun-
sel quoted at considerable length from his " Pro-
predia Prolihetica," protesting, however, against the
injustice which was done it by any mere desultory
extracts.
Mr. Coleridge was still speaking when the court
rose.

DEATH OF A CARRON WORKMAN
WORTH TEN TBOUS.AND POUNDS.

On Monday, John Andrew, a Carron workman,
died at the ripe age of 73. John was a remarkable
specimen of a hard-working, frugal living, canny
Scotchman. For upwards of 60 years he had been
connected with the Carron Ironworks, during which
time he had succeeded in amassing a fortune for a
working man. For about the last five years he
had retired from labour. His department in the
works was that of a foreman iron-dresser and letter
cutter of loam goods, which, in the days of the late
Mr. Joseph Stainton, and in those of the late Mr.
J. Dawson, was very lucrative. This may be in-
ferred from the fact that the deceased, in the course
of his life, amassed about £lO,OOO. His habits of
living were unusually moderate. He was never
known to spend a single farthing on luxuries, pre-
ferring to everything,

The halesome parritch
Wale o' Scotia's food,"
and such'primitive fare ; and it was deficient neither
in bone-forming, flesh-forming, or health-giving
alive, that
I hist wasfrugit said,
,however, when Sohn was
extended to niggardliness.
We have it on excellent authority that about eight
years ago, when his wife died, he asked permission
aly
of his employers to attend iicr funeral, and although
at that time worth about £6,60: he actually re-
turned to work immediately after having paid the
last respects to the remains of his partner in life.
His anxiety to pursue his daily avocation wati in
order to securo the full day's pay. It is further said
that despite his wealth he once craved one of his
relations for a halfpenny which was owing him, so
scrupulously exact was he in his monetary trans-
actions. When buying herrings he used to weigh
one in each hand so that he might buy the heaviest.
The most remarkable anecdote we have h6ard of
him is the following :—About twenty years agd, lie
chanced to take ill, and as he seriously thought he'
was dying, bethought himself how matters stood
with reference to futurity. Evidently wishing to
atone for his earthly deficiencies, he made a hand-
some donation (somewhere about £250), to the Rev:
Mr. Welch, late of the West U.P. Church, for the
purpose of establishing a native teacher in Caffrai ia.
Regaining health, he demanded back the sum. It
is not known exactly how his wealth will ulti-
mately be distributed. His heir-at-law is a younger
brother. According to report, a large sum has been
made over to bible societies and Colonial missions.
He had such a wonderful reverence for the first six-
pelcc he ever earned that he kept it for sixty
years.—Falkirk, Herald.

imMIS

': CRYSTAL PALACE.—HALF A-CROWN DAY.---Sa-
turday, Jan. 11.—Admission on payment, 569; ditto by
season tickets, 1,779 ; tital number of visitors, 2,648.
[ADvEnTisEmENT.]—liolloway s Pills—Thor Body's
Bulwark—Nine tenths of the maladies afflictindults
g a
depend upon a disordered state of the stomach. Holloway's
Pills correct the first symptoms of indigestion by acting
g stomachic
oTehethyedihspeealr, fladtiuslteenuction in ,
healthily on the gastric juice and WholFsom.ely. exciting the
liver.ver overcome andincipient ta.ntdt
et g,edsitni ogn ,more
and
aysa_c_c.o
advanced or neglected cases. These Pillslnvtgorate and
dsoeopnresrseiosntoroef tshterendgytshpepatliwe from the
mpgraneyaitn
and sudden
disorders or biliary. deangement. They beget cheerfulness,
vigour, and happmess.
IlrectifYing disorders of the
digestive apparatus these
... Pills prove themselves the
promptest previmtive of disease. They raise a bulwailt
a,,,,ainst all approaching maladies) mul preserve freshness,
health, and life.

OYAL LYCEUM THEATRE.
Manager—Mr. Edmund Falconer.
THIS EVENING, Jan. 13, the new and original Drama,
entitled PEEP O'DAY or, Savourneen Deelish. Messrs.
Walter Lacy, Hermann Vezin, Charles Silby, Edmund Fal-
con :Mrs. D. P. Bowers, Miss Clara Weston.
After which, a new and original Burlesque Extravaganza,
entitled LITTLE BED BIDING HOOD ; or, Thi, Fairlei of
the hose, the Thistle, and the Shamrcek. Principal charac-
ters by Air. Chas• Selby, Mr. Warlow, Miss Cicely Nott, and
miss Lydia Thompson.

Acting 3ranager—Mr, F. B. Chatterton.

Prices as usual. Doors open at half-past 6, to commence at
Box-office open daily from 11 tlll5.

. .
"4. `'
FL. .
.All t 4 „AA
40, 4,115,41-
• tin:, 4:1,, •11 • • „,otvi, ,bat o r , , .40.7r0

THE SUN.
LONDON, MONDAY, MN. 13, 1862.

Even Mr. JOHN BRIGHT must be satisfied with
the letter of Lord JOHN RUSSELL, which is now
before us in full. Not only can no single word or
phrase of an irritating or offensive character be
found in it, but without a sentence indicating the
slightest undignified apprehension on our part, it
almost goes out of its way to suppose the best con-
struction of the worst case. He willingly believes
that the act was not " authorised" by the American
Government, but that, even if the Commander
thought himself authorised, he must have " greatly
misunderstood his instructions." We must do his
lordship the justice to say, what we think no Ame-
rican can deny, that Lord JOHN'S letter is a master-
piece in the art of making a request presumed,
really, not to be a very pleasant one, in the way
which would render compliance with it pleasant.
Nor are we unwilling to concede similar praise
to Mr. SEWARD. An opinion or two we must dis-
cuss with a little freedom, but with the very
difficult task before him of contenting his own
people, of making a concession against which there
had been much clamour, and yet of writing a long
letter which, in point of temper, might advantage-
ously be compared with Lord RUSSELL'S short one,
he has executed his task in a masterly style. We
have great pleasure in acknowledging this. We
have seen very different documents from Mr.
SEWARD, but it is far more pleasant to give honest
praise than to appear censorious, especially when
the subject is the literary quality of a foreigner's
dispatch. The points raised by it are, of course,
fair matters for amicable discussion and legal cri-
ticism, and to this we now come.

~lt will
bo obvious in Lord RUSSELL'S despatch
that the ground of his demand was the same as
that on which the French note shows their Govern-
ment would also have based it. He says :—"lt thus
appears that certain individuals have been forcibly
taken from on board a British vessel, the ship of
a neutral power, while such vessel was pursuing
a lawful and innocent voyage, an act of violence
which was an affront to the British flag and a vio-
lation of international law." It will be perceived
that our chief morning contemporary was in error.
in supposing that the single point insisted on would
be the illegality of the mode of seizure. That it was
a serious point it is to some extent implied in the
ground taken by Lord RUSSELL, but he does not
make it the prominent point. Lord RUSSELL, like M.
THOUVENEL, insists on the fact that the vessel was a
neutral one, pursuing an innocent voyage—she was
going from one neutral port to another. Her very
destination ought to exempt her. M. THOUVENEL
justly says :—" But this is the moment to recall a
circumstance which governs all this affair, and
which renders the conduct of the American cruiser
unjustifiable. The Trent was not destined to a port
belonging to one of the belligerents; she was car-
rying to a neutral country her cargo and her pas-
sengers, and moreover it was in a neutral port
that they were taken. If it were admissible that
under such conditions the neutral flag does not
completely cover the persons and merchandise it
carries, its immunity would be nothing more than
an idle word. At any moment the commerce and
the navigation of third Powers would have to suffer
from their innocent and even their indirect relations
with the one or the other of the belligerents."
The world will think the two European Foreign
Secretaries were right in thus making the attack
upon such a vessel, the ground of their different
reclamations—and condemnation of the act. Mr.
SEWARD, however, takes very different ground. In
a very long legal argument he " assumes " as what
our authorities acknowledge, that " the circum.