New-York tribune., 1884-03-24
LETTERS FROM THE PEOPLE.
THE BIBLE AND THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND.

LETTER FROM THE REV. DR.. R. H. M'xIx REVIEW
mo FAMOUS DECISION OF THE PKIvY coUN-
GIL.
To the Editor Of TIE Tribune
SIR, In the course of the recent controversy
touching the inspiration and authority Of the Bbe refer
has been made than once both IN the secular
and the religious press TO the decision Of the judicial
Committee Of the Prvy Council (the hnal Court OF Ap
peals in scclesasoal in Engand in the case OF
the Rev. Rowland Williams d. D., charged with heresy
the ground OF certain statements made by him In an
article In the famous volume entitled Essays and Re-
views" Believing that the issues involved aud the judg
ment rendered in that eesbre have been misunder
stood that nerences have been drawn therefom in
furious to the Anglican Church. well variance
With the TRUTH beg TO call attention TO the following
points:
That Dr williams was acquitted upon the ground that
he had "nowhere asserted that holy Scripture
is Word Of God" and that the passages alleged
from his writings did not necessarily involve the position
that the Bible is not the Word Of God the rule OF
faith" The Judges held that the meaning OF Dr. Williams
upon the question OF inspiration might fairly be given az
follows; Bible inspired by the Holy Spirit that
has dwet and still dwes in the church. which dwelt
also In the sacred writer's Of Holy Scripture, and which
will aid aud illuminate the minds Of those who read Holy
Scripture trusting receive the gdadce and assistance
OF that spirit" Dr. Williams had affirmed that the Bible
is expression OF devout and therefore TO
be read with reason in freedom" and ina I
1t the written voice of the congregation But the
Court held that this language need not necessarily Imply
tna the Bible Is the composition Of devOut pious men
and nothing more. See " six Prvy Council Judgment
Henry 8. King & Co.. pp 96 97)
2-Ihat the terms OF the Judgment are such that we
warranted in inferrng that had DR.. Williams been
proved denied that the Bible Is the Word or Cod
and the Rule OF Faith. he would have been condemned
3-That upon any possible view OF the the jufg
pronounced gives color for asserting that the
Church Of England-suppoSlng this Court to bo tho
exponent OF her declsions-hss given license 70 her
ministers deny that the Bible Is supreme and infalble
inspiration which by necessary inference Iea1s 10 that
The only other charge against DR.. williams which
before the final Court Of Appeal related to the doctrine
Of justification, which does not concern us here.
beg to invite attention also TO the case OF the Rev
Henry Wilson, which decided at the time by
the same Court He too, charged with affirming that
the Scriptures OF the Old and New Testament were not
written inspiration OF the Holy Spirit, and that
they were not necessarily at all the Word OF God
THAT the trainers Of the Articles have not used the
word inspiration" as applied 20 the Holy Scriptures
nor have they laid down anything the nature, extent
limits OF that operation OF the Holy Spirit I'D p S9D
spirattOn can be imposed upon tue ministers Ot tne
church. But 1t does not follow that they are at liberty
teach theory which deprves the Scriptures OF the
place distinctly assigned them as the supreme and maj
authority in questions OF faith ami morals.
lures was written under the inspiration Of the Holy
Spirit is 70 be found either IN the Articles or IN
I
Il was not contradiction OF the doctrine OF the Church TO
affirm that any part OF the canOnca books OF the Old and
New TCstaments upon any subject whatever however
unconnected with religious faith aud moral duty not
written under the inspiration Of the Holy spirit ia
y. 99J 80.
Now waving the fact that out Of the three Lords
spiritual hO -a upon the court the Archbishop OF Can
terbury DE- Longey) and tue Archbishop Of York Dr
ThOm6sOn) dssented from the opinion just quoted In
both the cases which judgment pronounced, and
allowing t stand unChaenged the decision OF the
highest Ecclesiastical Court Ia the Church OF England
LEI these things be noted! .
THAT this decision does touch the inspiration
and nfabiity OF Holy Scripture upon all questions In,
voyiug religious faith and moral duty'whch Ia all
that even such conservative scholars Bishop Harold
Browne and Bishop EicOtt contend for.
2-That IL gives grounds by It's very cautious state
meut In a case which in England has the nature or O
criminal procedure for claiming that 10 Is lawful TO deny
the predctve Of Hebrew prophecy or 70 que
tou Inc reality the miracles narrated in the Bible mucb
les, to represent Christianity natural evolution from
below rather than supernatural revelation from above OF
DOUBT the miraculous conception OF jesus o
the Holy Ghost teach doctrine or the person OF
Christ scarcely distugushabe from Unitarianlsm.
submit sir that upon the basis Of this famous
Judgment, the Anglican Church still stands firm IN her
adhesion Bible the supreme court or appeal ID
all questions OF faith and morals. Very respectfully
Netc- York, March s. 1884. R IL MChLh'