Alexandria gazette. [volume] (Alexandria, D.C.) 1834-1974, 1884-03-29
THE BIBLE AND THE CHURCH OF
ENGLAND

10 the cditor Of the " J. IribRae
SIR: IL the course Of the recent contro-
versy touching tie Inspiration and authori-
" OF the Bible reference has been made
more than once, both in the secular and the
religious press 10 the decision Of the judi
cial Committee Of the Privy Council the
final Court Of Appeals in causes ecclesiasli-
cal III Englandl in the case Of the Rev. Row
| land Williams, D. D., charged with hcresy
On the ground Of certain statements made
! bv him in an article in the famous volume
entitled Essays and Reviews" Believing
| that the issues involved and the judgment
rendered III that cause celcbre have been
misltnlels ood, and that infercnces have
been drawn therclrom injurious to the An
giican Church, az we'll as at variance with
| the truth | beg IT, call attention TO the fol-
| lowing points:
'Hhat DR.. Williams was acquitted upon
| tie Grunnd that ne had ''uowhere in terms
asserted that Holy Scripture Is not the word
ofGod, and that the passages alleged from
| his writings Gid not necessarily Involve the
nosit!on THAT the Bible is not the Word Of
| God, nor the rule Of faith The Judges
| held that the meaning Of DR.. Williams up.
Oh the question OF inspiration might fair
| IL be given as follows: The Bible was in
! s;ire,! By the Holy Spirit that has ever dwelt
and still tlweiIs in me church, which dwclt
also in the sacred writers of Holy Scripture,
and which will aid and illuminate the minds
| Of those who read Holy Scripture, trusting
Lo receive The guidance and assistance of
that spirit DR.. Williams had affirmed
tnar The Bible is IAN expression of devout
reason, and therefore TO he read with rea-
| son in freedom" and that it is 1.-THE written
voice Of the congregation" But the Court
held this language need not necessarily
imply that the Bible is the composition Of
deyout or pious men and nothing more.
See six privy Council Judgment; Henry
:. King x Co. PIP. 50, 80
>. That the terms Of the judgment are
such that we are warranted in inierlug that
| had Dr.. Williams been proved TO have de-
MED tnat the Bible is the Word of God and
the Rule Of Faith, he would have been con
demred.
>. That upon any possible view Of the
case, the Judgment pronounced gives 10
color for asserting that the Church Of Eng
land i supposng this Court TO be the expo
nent of her decisons-has given license to
her ministers to deny that the Bible Is su
premc and iniallibe as n rnle OF faith and
morals or to teach any doctrine Of inspira-
| ton which BY necessary inference leads TO
| that conclusion.
The only other charge against DR.. Will
| lams which came before the final Court Ct
| Appeal related TO the doctrine classification,
which does not concern Us here.
| | beg 10 invite attention also to the case
| OF the Rev. Henry :. Wilson. which was de-
cit;td aJ the same time by the same Court
| He. too, was charged with affirming that the
Scriptures OF the Ola and New Testaments
were not written under the inspiration Of
the Holy Spirit, and that they were not ne
cessarily at all the Word of God.
The Court held
l.-Iiat the trainers of the Articles have
n.t used the word "inspiration'' sappied to
| the Holy Sculptures; nor haVcthey laid down
ANYTHING aa 10 he nature, extent or limits
Of that operation OF the Holy Spirit. I'd. p.
99) Il follows If this be true, that no par
ticuar theory Of Inspiration can be imposed
upon iAe ministers OF the church. But it docs
moi follow tina; they are at liberty TO teach
any theory which deprives the Scriptures of
| the place distinctly assigned them rs the su-
prcmc and final authority in questions Of
| faith and morals.
THAT the proposition that every part
of the Scriptures WAS written under the in
spira,ion os the Holy Spirit is not to be
/
Of the furnu!aries Of the Church; and
hence that it was not a contradiction
Of Tie doctrine Of The Church 10 af
firm thal any part Of the canonical books of
the Old and New Testaments, upon any
subject whatever, however unconnected
with religious faith and moral duty, was not
written under the inspiration of the Holy
Spirit Id. p. 80.
Now. waiving the fact that two out Of the
three Lords spiritual who sat upon the
court. the Archbishop. of Canterbury (Dr.
Longleyl and the Archbishop Of York Or.
Thompson), dissented from tie opinion just
quoted in both the cases on which judgment
was pronounced, and allowing it to stand
unchallenged as the decision Of the highest
Ecclesiastical Court in the Church of Eng
land. let these things be noted
/. That this decision does not touch the
inspiration and infalliblity of Holy Scrip
ture upon all questions involving religious
faith and "moral duty"-which is all that
even such conservative scholars as Bishop
Harold Browne and Bishop Ellicott con-
tend for.
,. That it gives no grounds by its very
cautious statement, in a case which in Eng
land has the nature ola criminal procedure,
for claiming that it is lawful to deny the
predictlVe Character VI aeuEcW PIopueCs
or to question the reality of the miracles mar
rated in the Bible, much less to represent
Christianity as o natural evolution from be-
low rather than a supernatural revelation
from above, or to cast doubt upon the
miraculous conception of Jesus by the Holy
Ghost. or to teach doctrine of the person
of Christ scarcely distinguishable from Uni
tarianisnl. l submit, sir, that. even upon
the basis of this famous Judgment, the
Anglican Church still stands firm in hel
adhesion to that Bible as the supreme court
) of appeal in all questions of faith and morals
G,1i,, D II ACE rIt