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

LA TV INTELLIGENCE.—Dec. 19.

ARCHES COURT.
(Before Dr. Lushington,)
THE OFFICE OF THE JUDGE PROMOTED BY THE BISHOP
OF SALISBURY V. THE REV. DR. ROWLAND WILLIAMS
(CLERK).
The suit was brought by the Bishop of Salisbury
against the Rev. Dr. R. Williams, vicar of Broad
Chalk, in the county of Wilts, and diocess of Salis-
bury, the author of one of.the essays-contained in
the book entitled " Essaysand.Reviews."

Dr. Phillimore, Q.C., Mr. Coleridge, Q.C., and
Dr. Swabey appeared on behalf of the Bishop of
Salisbury : and Dr. Deane, Q.C., and Mr. Fitz
James Stephen for the Rev. Dr. Williams.

The case came before the Court to-day on the
'admission of the articles, which was opposed by
the defendant. The charges brought against the
defendant are contained in 22 articles, of which the
_first, second, third, and fourth are entirely formal.
The articles objected to are from the fifth to the
17th inclusive. The essay contributed by the de-
fendant is entitled " Bunsen's Biblical Researches,"
to which exception is taken on the ground that it
contains doctrine contrary and repugnant to the
Articles of Religion of the United Church of Eng-
land and Ireland, and that the review has a ten-
dency to inculcate a disbelief in the Divine inspire
tion and authority of the Holy Scriptures. Article
5 is as follows :—That by your order or consent, by
"way of preface or introduction to the said
_book,
entitled " Essays and Reviews," it is printed as
follows To the Reader,—lt will be understood
that the authors of the ensuing essays are respon-
sible for their respective articles only. They have
written in entire independence of each other, and
without concert or comparison. The volume, it
is hoped, will be received as an attempt to:illus-
trate the advantage derivable to the cause of
religious and moral truth from a free
handling, in a becoming spirit, of subjects pecu-
liarly liable to suffer by the repetition of con-
ventional language, and from traditional methods
of treatment. And that the said book has, with
your knowledge and consent, passed through nine
editions, and that no other preface or introduction
than the aforesaid one has been prefixed thereto, or
printed or published." Article 6 is in the following
terms That the said articulate essay or review,
entitled Bunsen's Biblical Researches,' has not,
during the nine editions aforesaid, undergone any,
or at least any material or substantial alteration,
but is in all of them exactly, or almost exactly, in
the very same words as it was when first published
by you, or by your order, in the first edition." Ar-
ticle 7 is as follows : —" That in the said article,
essay, or review are contained the following pas-
sages As in his "Egypt" our author sifts the
historical date of the Bible, so in his " Gott in der
Geschichte" he expounds its directly religious ele-
ment. Lamenting, like Pascal, the wretchedness of
our feverish being when estranged from its eternal
stay, he traces,as a countryman of Hegel,the Divine
thought bringing order out of confusion. Unlike the
despairing school, who forbid us trust in God or in
conscience, unless we kill our souls in literalism, he
finds salvation for men and States only in becoming
acquainted with the Author of our life, by whose
reason the world stands fast, whose stamp we bear
in our forethought, and whose voice our conscience
echoes.:: In the Bible, as an expression of devout
reason, and therefore to be read with reason in free-
dom, he finds record of the spiritual giants whose
experience generated the religious atmosphere we
breathe.' . If we could estimate the truth of
such views, the full import of which hardly lies on
the surface, we find two lines of inquiry present
themselves as criteria; and each of these divides
itself into two branches. First, as regards the sub-
ject matter, both spiritual affection and metaphysi-
cal reasoning forbid us to confine revelations like
those of Christ to the first half-century of our era,
but show at least affinities of our faitja existing in
men's minds anterior to Christianity, and renewed
with deep echo from living hearts in many a genera-
tion. Again, on the side of external criticism, we
find the evidences of our canonical books and of
the patristic authors nearest to them are suffi
cient to prove illustration in outward act
of principles perpetually true ; but not ade-
quate to guarantee narratives inherently incre-
dible, or precepts evidently wrong. Hence
we are obliged to assume in ourselves a verifying
faculty, not unlike the discretion which a mathema-
tician would use in weighing a treatise on geometry,
or the liberty which a musician would reserve in
reporting a law of harmony. Thus, as we are ex-
pressly told, we are to have the witness in ourselves.
It is not our part to dictate to Almighty God that
lie ought to have spared us this strain upon our
consciences ; nor, in giving us through His Son a
deeper revelation of His own presence, was Ile
bound to accompany His gift by a special form of
record. Hence there is no antecedent necessity that
the least rational view of the Gospel should be the
truest, or that our faith should have no human ele-
ment, and its records be exempt from historical law.
Rather we may argue, the more Divine the germ
the inure human must be the development-'
. . .
lint if such a notion alarms those who think that,
apart from omniscience belonging to the Jews, the
proper conclusion of reason is Athe,ism, it is not in-
consistent with the idea that Almighty God has
been pleased to educate men and nations, employ-
ing imagination no less than conscience, and suffer
ing Isis lessons to play freely within the limits of
humanity and its shortcomings. Nor will any fair
reader rise from the prophetical disquisitions with-
out feeling that he has been under the guidance of
a master's haul. The great result is to vindicate
the work of the Eternal Spirit ; that abiding infiu•
ence which, as our Church teaches us in the Ordi-
nation Service, underlies all others, and in which
converge all images of old time and means of grace
now; temple, Scripture, finger, and hand of God;
and again, preaching, sacraments, waters which
comfort, and flame which burns. If such a spirit
did not dwell in the Church the Bible would not be
inspired, for the Bible is, before all things, the
written voice of the congregation. Bold as such
a theory of inspiration may sound, it was the
earliest creed of the Church, and it is the only
one to which the facts of Scripture answer.
The Sacred Writers acknowledge themselves men
of like passions with ourselves, and we are pro-
mised illuminations from the Spirit which dwell in
them. Hence, when we find our Prayer-book con-
structed on the idea of the Church being an in-
spired society, instead of objecting that every one
of us is fallible, we should define inspiration con-
sistently with the facts of Scripture and of human
nature. These would neither exclude the idea of
fallibility among Israelites of old, nor teach us to
quench the Spirit in true hearts for ever. But if
any one prefers thinking the sacred writers pas-
sionless machines, and calling Luther and Milton
uninspired,' let him co operate in researches by
which his theory, if true, will be triumphantly con-
firmed." It is charged that the defendant, in the
passages quoted, maintained " that the Bible, or
Holy Scripture, is an expression of devout reason,
and the written voice of the congregation, nut the
Word of God, nor containing any revelation of His
truth or of His dealings with mankind, nor the
rule of our faith ;" or that he maintained doctrines
or opinions contrary to or inconsistent with the 6th,
7th, and 20th Articles of Religion,—to that part of
the Nicene Creed which declares in substance that
the Holy Ghost spake by the Prophets,—and con-
trary to and inconsistent with the teaching of the
Church, as contained in the Ist Chapter of the
Epistle to the Hebrews, appointed in the Book of
Common Prayer to be read as the Epistle for
Christmas-day ; to the Epistle to be read for the
Epiphany (Ephesians iii., 1) ; and as contained in
the proper preface appointed in the Book of Com-
mon Prayer upon Whit Sunday. Article 8 con-
tains passages selected from pages 65 to 74 inclu-
sive of the essay, which are objected to on the
ground that the defendant did therein affirm that
in the Books of the Old Testament there is, with the
possible exception of one, two, or three doubtful
passages, no element of divinely inspired prediction
Or prOgnostica •
,oa of future persons or events, and
that such
7th Articles of doctrine was contrary to the 6th and
Religion,c to the Nicene Creed, and
to the portions of ripture appointed to be read
as the Gospel for theMonday,in Easter
and the Epistle and
Gospel for the Tpuasessadgayesi
of
f-taster week. Article 9
relates to the
work contained in
pages 76 and 77 Article 10 the
passages at pages
83, 84, and 85 ; Article 11, to pagAesttsi6els9, and 61 ;
passage as inconsisteentl3
Article 12, to pages 81 and 87,
objects
first
Christiansesith the
to the following
27th Article of Religion—" The
held that the heart was purified by faith; etie
by
symbol, water, became
accompanyingdegrees
the instrument of purification. Holy baptism was
at first preceded by a vow in which the young
soldier expressed his consciousness of spiritual
truth ; but when it became twisted into a false
analogy with circumcision the rite degenerated into
a magical form, and the Augustinian notion of a
curse inherited by infants was developed in con-
nexion with it." The 14th Article charges that, in
the following passage—" Thus the incarnation be-
comes with our author as purely spiritual as it was
with S. Paul ; the son of David by birth is the
Son of God by the spirit of holiness," the defendant
affirms that the incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ
was purely spiritual, and that the Son of God did
not take man's nature in the womb of the blessed
Virgin, contrary to the second of the Articles of
Religion. Article 15 charges the defendant with
maintaining that justification by faith meant only
peace of mind, or Divine approval, which comes of
trust in a righteous God, and that justification is a
verdict of forgiveness upon our repentance, and of
acceptance upon the offering of our hearts, which
dam
or
them
went is alleged to be inconsistent with the 11th
Articles of Religion, Article 16 charges the

defendant with having, in the passages contained
in pages 92 and 93 of the volume, approved and
assented in the substance, of all tie essay,
"as well those parts and words of which
other persons were the original writers as
those written by the defendant." The whole of the
charges are summed up in the 17th Article, as fol-
lows :—" That the manifest tendency, k cope, object,
and design of the whole essay is to inculcate a dis-
belief in the Divine inspiration of the Holy Scrip-
tures contained in the Old and New Testaments;
to reduce the said Holy:Scriptures to the level of a
mere human composition, such as the writings of
Luther end of Milton ; to deny that the Old Testa-
ment contains prophecies or predictions of our Sa-
viour, and other persons and events; to deny
that the prophets, speaking under the special in-
spiration of the Holy Spirit, foretold human events;
to deny altogether or greatly discredit the truth
and genuineness of the historical portions of the
Old Testament, and the truth and genuineness of
certain parts of the New Testament, and the truth
and reality of the miracles recorded as facts in the
Old and New Testaments ; to deny, or interpret by
a meaning at variance with that of the Church, the
doctrines of original sin, of infant baptism, of jus-
tification by faith, atonement and propitiation by
the death of our Saviour, and of the incarnation of
our Saviour."

Dr. Phillimore, having opened the case and read
the articles, asked the Court to admit tilt m.

Dr. Deane, Q.C., on behalf of the Rev. Dr. Wil-
liams, in opposition to the admission of the articles,
said he had no doubt that the promoter, in institut-
ing these proceedings, had been influenced by pres-
sure from without. The defendant was no obscure
or unknown man. For many years he had been
known at the University of Cambridge not only as
a man of learning, but as taking a deep interest in
theological inquiry. He was known as the author
a " History of Christianity and Hindooism," and of
several sermons preached before the University of
Cambridge, which had been for years before the
public, and as a Hebrew scholar he was greatly
distinguished. The volume in which :the essay
complained of was published had been before the
public for a considerable time before any particular
notice was taken of it, Its history was somewhat
singular, for it was not till, perhaps unfortunately,
an article appeared in the " Westminster Review"
—the pith of which was that it was a great pity
the writers had not avowed themselves to be infidels
—that the book attracted general attention. Then
came the election at Oxford of a Professor of Sans-
crit, when members of the University from all parts
of the kingdom met and discussed the " Essays and
Reviews.' Then came an article in the "Quarterly
Review," which, with an ignorance that was sin-
gular if not pretended, declared that everything in
the volume was new, while it was well known by
the reading public that the opinions there expressed
were to be found in the floating literature of the
day, which in cant phrase were termed " neology."
Last came the speech of the right hon, member for
Bucks. What was the object of the prosecution ?
Not a sermon, but a review of a book written and
published by another man, in which were set forth
the opinions of the author in question. The com-
ments made were few, and where made were within
the law of the Church of England. He had yet to
learn that it was an offence against the law for
clergymen to review the work of a learned man and
comment upon it. The author of the book reviewed
(Baron Bunsen) was a man of great natural talent,
whe cultivated it with more than ordinary success,
and with opportunities at his command which few
ever possessed. He was the pupil of Niebuhr, the
historian, and his secretary during his lengthened
residence at Rome. He had spent a considerable
time in Egypt, and afterwards resided in England
for nearly a quarter of a century. He was the
founder of the Bishopric of Jerusalem, which is in
the gift of England and Prussia alternately. He had
mixed with at least one religious party in this coun-
try, and he must be a bold man that would say that
in works by Baron Bunsen would be found doctrines
that supported infidelity. Some people might think
that strange doctrines were unsafely advanced in
the essays in question, and short sighted views
might be taken in regard to it. He would instance
the address of a very learne'l man, the Rev. Dr.
Jelf, who in his address to Convocation expressed
alarm because he had been informed that infidels
were circulating extracts from the " Essays "at
Leeds. He should have known that Atheists and
sceptics published in parallel columns passages of
Scripture for the same purpose—to show their an-
tagonism to each other and their inconsistency with
science. The watchward of the Bible Society was,
" The whole Bible, and nothing but the Bible"—
that was, leaving the Divine Book to the people
for the exercise of their private judgment. A
clergyman by his ordination vow was bound to in-
struct others in the right understanding of Holy
Writ. The learned counsel said that the objections
he would state to the articles were threefold. The
objection to Article 5 was applicable to it alone—
those to Articles 6 to 17 upon grounds more or less
applicable to all, and the objection to Article 17 was
limited to it alone and to its form. With reference
to Article 5, he remarked that any person reading
that article by itself would conclude that the pre-
face to the book contained erroneous doctrine, or
that, by what was contained in it, the defendant
became responsible for all the " Essays ;" but the
first proposition is that the writers are responsible
for their respective articles only. The last sentence
in quotation speaks of their mode of treatment of the
subjects discussed, and he contended that no subject
had suffered so much as religion from the use of con-
ventional language. The supposition that Dr. Wil-
liams was to be fixed with the responsibility of the
other " Essays " was excluded by the terms of the
4th and 18th Articles. It was true that the work
had passed through nine editions, and now they
exceed that number, which could be accounted for
by the manner in which it had been attacked. lie
contrasted the extensive circulation of the " Essays"
with the fate of " Strauss' Life of Christ," which
was not made the subject of judicial proceeding, but
was replied to by Neander, and the consequence
was that Strauss' book was a dead loss to the pub.
lisher. The article was wrong in substance, and
inconsistent with the scope of the general charge.
It was useless, as the court could not inflict punish-
ment. Dr. Deane repeated that it was no part of
his instructions, nor was it his duty to shrink from
the most thorough inquiry into all the passages
cited. He would not adopt any legal subterfuge in
dealing with them. He was not sent there to ex-
plain away or conceal the opinions of the defendant.
The scheme of the articles appeared to be to ex-
tract certain passages, and to suggest a meaning,
or a tendency to a meaning, repugnant to the doc-
trines of the Church. He contended that the pas-
sages selected should have been given with the
context. But the framers of the articles had done
worse; they had actually mixed up passages taken
from different parts of the essay. His Lordship, in
determining this case, would have to decide rather
as a literary critic than as an eccksiastical judge.
As an illustration of the progress of science he re-
fereed to the belief in a former age of quite a dif-
ferent movement of the heavenly bodies from that
which'we now entertain, and he wished to know if
there was no improvement to be made in the science
of philology. Was there to be no progress in our
knowledge of words P He complained that in the
articles no distinction was made between the
opinions of the author of the book reviewed and the
sentiments of the reviewer.

When the Court rose the learned counsel had
entered upon his argument against the admissibility
of the 7th Article, which charges the defendant
with maintaining that Holy Scripture is "an
expression of devout reason and the written voice
of the congregation," not the word of God.
The further hearing of the case will be proceeded
with to-day.