The Sun.
London, England, 1861-12-21 00:00:00

at one end of the room, for my child and Lady
Gethin's children. It was not true that on any
occasion Lady Gethin sat on my knee. She never
had her legs in my lap, or her aims round my neck.
I never had my arms round her waist. Caroline
Wilson, the servant, had left Miss Dennys a few
weeks before me. She left in consequence of my
complaints of her inattention, slovenliness, dirt, and
rudeness. I complained of having lost a book while
she was there. It was " Abercrombie on the Intel-
lectual Powers." Miss Dennys never told me that
she said she saw Lady Gethin sitting on my knee.
I gave Miss Dennys notice to quit. There never
was any improper intercourse between me
and Lady Gethin. It is untrue that I
ever kissed her. I held a commission in the
army, and afterwards a military post in her
Majesty' household. As a rule my boy slept
with me, except when I moved down stairs.
Lady Gethin never drew in my bedroom. She
was never in my bedroom except on the occasion I
have alluded to. When I was leaving, Miss Dennys
asked me to recommend her lodgers, and I.said I
certainly would as soon as she got her drains re-
paired, and the nasty smell of which I complained
removed. Not a single word of dissatisfaction was
expressed towards me by the Misses Dennys, and
they pressed me to stop. I always made a point of
going to church twice on Sundays while at Notting-
hill. I used to read the Lessons to Miss Dennys
after I returned from evening service, but I never
read prayers to her. I was like a brother with Cap-
tain Poley. I continued on terms of intimate
familiarity with Lady Gethin until Sir Richard
Gethin made a charge against me.
Cross-examined by Sir F. Slade—l introduced
myself to the Poley family at Little Hampton. I
had no business at Notting-hill. I wrote to Lady
Gethin to take lodgings for me there. I never
represented to Miss Dennys that she was my
cousin. It is true that she went with me to the
lodgings on my arrival, to show me the room.
I gave her port wine on one occasion, when she
was suffering from nervous head-ache, to which
she was subject. It was on that occasion she
was in my room, and she remained only about
two minutes. I remember sending on one occa-
sion for a pill and dose for her. She dined
several times with me while I was at Notting-
hill, but she did not make a practice of doing
so three or four times a week. I dined about
once a fortnight at Ladbroke-square. I had no
other business at Victoria-terrace than to be in
the company of Lady Gethin. She used some-
times to mend my shirts, and I used to
put my linen out to air in her presence. Miss
Dennys never said anything respecting the neigh-
bours talking about Lady Gethin being so much
with me.

This closed the whole of the evidence in the
case, the hearing of which will be resumed to-
morrow (this day).

ARCHES COURT.
(Before Dr. Lushington,)
"ESSAYS AND REVIEWS."

THE OFFICE OF THE JUDGE PROMOTED BY THE BISHOP
OF SALISBURY V. THE REV. Dli.• ROWLAND WILLIAMS,
D D.
Dr. Deane resumed his argument 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 their being
inspired, and no evidence of the prognostication of
future persons and events. To meet this accusation
he quoted Bishop Louth's " Preliminary Disserta-
tion," with the view of bringing Dr. Williams
within the case referred t 3 in " Heath v. Burder,"
that a man might not be punished to-day for opi-
nions that had passed unnoticed and unchallenged
by persons in authority in former ages, and also to
show that criticism of the text was an open ques-
tion, and that the very text itself as we received
it, and still more as the Hebrew original now was,
was but a translation of other and older documents,
and in many respects a faulty translation. They
were, in fact, dealing with the translation of a
translation, and the object of the prosecution was
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 re-
ferred 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 a writing might be genuine though
not authentic, or authentic though the word genuine
could not be applied to it. Apocryphal seemed to be
opposed to authentic—a writing, in fact, which was
disallowed—and canonical was used in divinity to
mean part of the canons or collections of writings
of divine authority. With regard to the interpreta-
tion of the word " inspired," Dr. Hay said some
men had held that every word of Scripture was
inspired, and therefore the sacred writers were
“wou to. Thia Warburton oalled
" organic inspiration," and "passionless machines"
were the words 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 organic inspiration. The passage quoted in the
Bth article charged was assorted to be contrary to
the 6th Article, which was, " Of the sufficiency of
Holy Scriptures for salvation." Now, every article
used in religion was not affirmative, 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 had
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 extracted from Dr. Williams's essay
which could be regarded as in any way opposed to
that article. Warburton had written that the
doctrine of future rewards and punishments was not
at first known among the Jews, and in that article
the 17th 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 prophecy ?
Dr. Deane said Dr. Williams had never denied
the sense of prophecy in its fulfilment—that was in
its secondary sense. And upon this point of the in-
spiration 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 Old Testament in which
the rising on the fourth day was foretold. He did
not throw tbeslightest doubt on the 21th chapter of
St. Luke, but this only showed the danger of taking
a passage which the Church had appointed to be
read on a particular day, and holding that every
word of that passage was to be judged in its literal
sense, without any examination whether it was so
written or not. In the same way there was no pro-
phecy known distinctly announcing that Christ
should be called a Nazarene, and the Hebrew word
which had been translated "Nazarene" might be,
as had been affirmed, translated with the same
accuracy a branch or flower.

The Judge hoped it would not be for a moment
understood that he was going to try these grave
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 if the learned counsel
showed that his client had only entertained the
same opinions, it would bring him into the position
in the case of "Burder v: Heath."
Dr. Deane was 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 hold even with ap-
probation by others before him. The 9th article
charged Dr. Williams in the first place with " dis-
tinguishing the man David from the Book of
David," and in hringinc, the latter as low as the
_reign of the Epiphanes the author only followed the
admitted necessities of the case. But the whole
passage quoted gave the explanation of the opinion
not of Dr. Williams, but of Baron Bunsen, who dis-
tinguished the man David from the book. The
date of the book, however, proved the position as-
serted, and surely a clergyman whose knowledge
led him to that conclusion was not to be placed in
the position that he must contradict his knowledge
to be convicted of the grossest ignorance before his
congregation, or must render himself liable to a
charge of heresy, Dr. Williams, again, had never
said 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 had said that the Book of Jonah, in-
corporated in the Old Testament, was never written
by him. He (Dr. Deane)
r coald produce a flood of
authorities that in instanceanother the book was
naemnteir iteook. The
l
not written by the person whose
Pentateuch could not have been
by Moses, for it contained an account of entirely
and was the person to be regarded as a heretice
wbo disputed that Moses was the writer of the
whole ? Nobody would contend that the Book
of Ruth was written by Ruth, and ho would
ask who wrote the Book of Job ? But Dr. Wil-
liams had never said that the Book of Jonah was not
written by Jonah. Taking the 10th article, the
indictment was misunderstood, miscited, and mis-
pverersfsoerd. waspr. thate
Williams
htchhaeadrrengeewydaesrannsaodidatuht thehaotorpti thi ynei wonhaetxe
authority of Scripture was
td he ea
rsta said thatthe
tnhoet
EbipnideitniegtuoptohnethHe
eCbhreuwrceh,wnaoar
nhoa
Holy
he h
ad said
Scriptures, andwaaes,
th suchat
B bindingaron Bunsen
onan
etch:
tChhouurgchht.
What