The Sun.
London, England, 1861-08-12 00:00:00

- - -
THE BISHOP OF SALISBURY'S CHARGE.

The Bishop of Salisbury is now before the world
as the Bishop who has resolved to bell the cat.
He tells us in his charge, just delivered, the rea-
sons for this resolution, as well as those which
made him hesitate in taking it. They are briefly
that, though " the Church allows great latitude,
there must be a limit somewhere ;" and that the
whole bench of Bishops and Convocation have de-
clared. that the Essays and Reviews have exceeded
that limit. Accordingly he does not consider that
he has any option as the-ruler of a diocess, respon-
sible for the teaching that goes on in it, but that of
giving force to this declaration.
We do not envy any party in this affair its share
in the responsibility of it—not the writers for stir-
ring up these irfestions to begin with, not the
Bishops for pursuing them, and still less the respon-
sibility of the Judicial Committee in deciding them.
They are new questions, and, whichever way they
are settled, there must be a recourse to large consi-
derations and general principles. It will be abso-
lutely ridiculous to see a row of ex-Chancellors and
Judges poring over all the Articles and Canons to
see what clause, paragraph, and section is opposed
to the " ideological" interpretation of the Book of
Jonah. It is a large and general question of the
interpretation of Scripture which
.is now opened.
It is a new question—a question we cannot say
exactly of the day, for it has been agitated long,
but of the age; a question which had not arisen
in our Reformers' times, and of which they had no
notion. It is absurd to expect, therefore, that the
mere letter of Articles and Canons will throw much

light upon it. In these documents there is not the
most distant allusion anywhere to what is called
the ideological interpretation of Scripture, simply
because the idea had not been mooted in those days.
The Articles, therefore, nowhere condemn that
idea; at the same time, they imply throughout the
contrary idea. Nobody can doubt for a moment
that all the Church formularies and services suppose

throughout the ordinary, natural, literal interpre
tation of the Bible; though, admitting this, some I
will say it is for the same reason,—that no other
idea had arisen at that time. This is the state of
the case, then. There is no express condemnation
of a particular view, but there is everywhere imply-
ing the contrary view. Each side, then, will appeal
to what favours itself, and will also explain on its
own principles what is against itself. The Bishop
of Salisbury appeals to the implied literal view, and
to the way in which the Bible is used and read in
our Services. The Essayist says, "True, but
wherever the Bible is read, out of church or in
church, this liberty of interpretation accompanies it.
Here is the debatable ground, then, on which both
sides will fight. We will not anticipate the alter-
nations of the combat, but this much, as we have
said, is apparent,—that this question cannot be
settled by the mere letter of our formularies, an
that recourse must be had to large and general con-
sideration. The question is what is, as a matter of
fact, the belief of the Church of England on this
question, and by the belief of the Church we do not
mean the belief of the Bishops or the belief of Con-
vocation, but the belief of the congregations which
compose the actual religious community called the
Church of England. Dr. Rowland Williams will
excuse us if we say that, with one broadly-marked
exception, there is not a single Dissenting sect in
this country that would tolerate his scheme of Bible
interpretation for a day ; but it does not follow from
this that the Church of England does not tolerate
it. The Church may be, .end we believe it is, a
more tolerant body than any Dissenting sect in
this country. But the question is, how far this goes
—what is the actual belief of the body of people
who compose that Church,—and this, as we say, is
a simple question of fact which we must decide in
the best way we can. But, whichever way it is
decided, this is the fact which must determine
whether Dr. Rowland Williams has opinions suit-
able and proper for a minister of the Church of
England or not. There can be no doubt as to
the general principle that a minister of a com-
munion ought to have the same belief that the
communion has ; for it never could be designed
that the minister should be of one religion
and the community of another: Nor would
it be anything to the purpose to say that, if the
Church of England is not of Dr. Williams' way of
thinking now, it will be so a huneireds years hence,
because truth, must prevail. Fser, supposing the
Church by a course of indoctrinating were broughtthe
round to the ideological view. a century hence,
question is—what is her belief now ? If, on the one
hand, she repudiates Transubstantiation, Mariola-
try, and Papal infallibility, does she, on the other,
permit every article of the Christian faith to be ex-
plained away and volatilzed by some new process
of theological chemistry ? Dr. Rowland Williams
is, we have no doubt, an excellent scholar and an,
ingenious divine ; nor do we enter at this moment
into the question whether he is right or 'wrong. It
is evident, however, that if upon a plain and lucid
exposition of his mode of interpreting the Bible
nine-tenths of his congregation would shut their
ears and rush out of the church, he is not a suitable
and advantagewas minister for the parish of Broad
Chalk.

It is upon some such grounds of ecclesiastical
equity as we have here mentioned that this
question must be settled. We must not be roman-
tic, and go exclusively to the past ; nor must
we be visionary, and attempt to forestall the
futurq, What we ha,ye to decide is a question of

present fact, testimony to which, we pt./
forthcoming if wanted. It does nut (aced
:uso uur .144ferinere had c:J.1.,;.e
therefore the Church .4.•Engl..ral, eL, ~ •
!Jody, has exactly thil• Sallie' ideas n!-,v. :1.
are we at liberty to go:.,ett.ttliti (! li tu:,' il i, ill-
and let it decide the question 'l.r 11.,, Preulicsy-
ing is not arguing. "Pt;opits have always been ready
way in prophecy, and nobody can contradict them.
enough to prophesy; they. have it all their own
Religious speculators have, been prophesying for
will quite
in cerdtauien
ttiom some
mbee
su
ages that the world would come round to their
opinion, but the world takes its own course
twints•
scientific in its religious belief. We agree with
Lord Macaulay in seeing no signs of such a time
pneorllsttbanutdinagli.
thelt worldds
approaching. The religious world is tolerably
stationary, and shows no great tendency to pro_
gress or alteration of ground, though individuals in
all ages speculate. Let us give over prophesying, -
then, and look to facts. If Dr. Williams can show
the Judicial Committee that the body of the religi--
ons community in which he is officiating accepts the .
ideological interpretation of Scripture it will listen
with the greatest attention to any e nce he can
bring forward, and he will prove his to officiate
in that body. But' if the whole w , of evidence'.
is on the other side, if it should appAr that all
parties and schools in the Church join in denouncing
this view of Scripture as fundamek 11 bversive
of the faith, and if the congjegati., of listen
to it for a day, he will then have•sto,up I.ll,affair of
it. He may look forward, indeed, to•elbight future'. .-
radiant with ideological truth, and Ills own learned
labours may contribute to bring on that future, but
in the meantime he is officiating in a body which is
opposed to his whole religious.view of things, and •
this is an unsatisfactory relatign of a Minister to
his flock. In fact, we must identify his position - -
with that which he assigns to his teacher, the late
Chevalier Bunsen, whom he describes as " philoso .i t..
pher, sitting loose to our' isles ;" fl. position which,. • •
however respectable in"Vself, is hardly consistent
with the office of a clergyman of the Church of
ED girt.'
j, Times.