DEFENCE OF THE REV. ROWLAND WILLIAMS, D.D. IN THE ARCHES’ COURT OF CANTERBURY. DEFENCE OF THE REV, ROWLAND WILLIAMS, D.D. IN THE ARCHES’ COURT OF CANTERBURY. BY JAMES FITZJAMES STEPHEN, MA, OF THE INNER TEMPLE, BARRISTER-AT-LAW, RECORDER OF NEWARK-ON-TRENT. LONDON: SMITH, ELDER AND CO, 65, CORNHILL. M.DCCO,LXII. The right of Translation ts reserved. g ie i * h - cued | ae : oa 1 eye Ss fan eee rs ; be aa ae in 2022 with func from hie Pri err Theological sae Li pr ear nay y 2 | 7 aael A Gols ‘ Be Da i iquem Ay ’ \popertig + iif et . ay pe a q i eat, Petes TABLE OF CONTENTS. —+ PAGE PREFACE ° . ° . : ° ° eval ABSTRACT OF INDICTMENT “ 5 , 5 ane LX Extracts From “Essays AND REVIEWS” . é ° BEXKOrY; ABSTRACT OF ARGUMENT c cee ke a o G eal PART 1 Statement of the Legal Principles of the Case.—Observations on the Form of Pleading adopted.—Examination of the 6th, 7th, and 20th Articles of Religion.—Examination of the Question and Answer in the Ordination Service for Deacons. —Com- parison of the Thirty-nine Articles with the Creed of Pius IV. and the Westminster Confession.—The Difference Explained from the Writings of Divines of the Seventeenth Century . : : A é : é : 1 PARI AL Answer to the Objection that the Infallibility of the Bible was believed by the Divines quoted.— Use made of the Liberty left by the Articles, by eminent Divines of the Church of England in the Deistical Controversy, and in the Controversies arising from Modern Scientific discoveries.—Examination of their views of the Inspiration and Authority of the Scriptures 111 a—s v1 TABLE OF CONTENTS. PART It: PAGE Dr. Williams’s Defence on Specific Charges as to Scripture :— Count 7, as to Inspiration.—Count 8, as to Prophecy.— Counts 9 and 10, as to the Authorship and Canonicity of Par- ticular Books.—Count 11, as to the Figurative Interpretation. —Summary of the Case.—Charges relating to Scripture lS PART IV. Defence of Dr. Williams for Specific Charges as to Doctrine:— Counts 12 to 15: General Observations on Dr. Williams’s Relation to Baron Bunsen, and on the Garbling of the Pas- sages cited; Examination of Dr. Williams’s Account of the Doctrines contained in the Hippolytus; Examination of his Account of the Corruptions of the Medieval Clergy.—Counts 16 and 17: Scope, Tendency, and Design of the Essay.— Judicial Legislation : . 4 A ° . 284 Notes , a : 4 : . “ . 332 PREFACH. Tux speech contained in this volume is published just as it was delivered, with the exception of corrections in lan- guage and style. One or two passages have been condensed and re-arranged. The four parts into which the speech is divided do not correspond with the days on which it was delivered. Part of the third part was delivered on the second day, and the remainder and the whole of the fourth part on the third day. Of the numerous quotations in the second part from the writings of eminent divines on the subject of Inspiration, fifteen will be found in a pamphlet published by Dr. Samuel Davidson in his edition of the second volume of Horne’s Introduction to the Scriptures; seven of them I borrowed from Dr. Davidson’s pamphlet; the others I had collected before I met with it. I have verified all of them, and can testify, not merely to their accuracy, but to the fact that they fairly represent the views of the authors quoted. In most cases I have given in the footnotes references to the edition as well as to the page of the authors referred to. I subjoin a list of the editions of a few authors whom I had frequent occasion to quote, and with whose works I did not take this course. Vill PREFACE. Burnet on the Thirty-nine Articles. Oxford. 1819. 1 vol. 8vo. . Buruzr’s Works. Oxford. 1844. 2 vols, 8vo. CurttinawortH’s Works. London. 1742. 1 vol. folio. Hey’s Lectures on Divinity. Cambridge, 1816. 4 vols. 8vo0. Homittes of the Church of England. Oxford. 1840. 1 vol. 8vo. Hooxer’s Works. Oxford. 1845. 2 vols. 8vo. Jeremy Taytor’s Works, by Heber. Oxford. Warzorton’s Divine Legation of Moses. London. 1766. 5 vols. 8vo. Tn order to render the case intelligible, I have prefixed to the speech an abstract of the articles exhibited against Dr. Williams, two extracts from the Essays and Reviews themselves, and an abstract of my argument. The extracts from the Lssays and Reviews are intended to enable the public to form some notion of the manner in which the articles against Dr. Williams were drawn up, and the degree of fairness with which the extracts given repre- sented his opinions. ABSTRACT OF THE - ARTICLES EXHIBITED AGAINST DR; WILLIAMS mee IN, CERIO ARCHES’ COURT OF CANTERBURY. N.B.—In order to avoid confusion between the artictes of charge, the individual ARTICLES of which the articles of charge are made up, and the THIRTY-NINE ARTICLES of religion, the articles collectively are, throughout this work, described as THE INDICTMENT, and the individual articles as the counts. The word ARTICLES is throughout applied to the Thirty-nine Articles of religion only. Tue charge: against Dr. Williams was for having, in his Review of Bunsen’s Biblical Researches contained in the Essays and Reviews, advisedly maintained and affirmed certain erroneous, strange, and heretical doctrines, posi- tions and opinions, contrary and repugnant to the doc- trine and teaching of the said United Church of England and Ireland, as by law established, contravening thereby the statutes, constitutions, and canons ecclesiastical of the realm, and against the peace and unity of the Church. The charge was contained in twenty-two counts. X ABSTRACT OF THE INDICTMENT. The First Count was as follows:—We article and ob- ject to you, the said Reverend Rowland Williams, that by the laws, statutes, constitutions, and canons ecclesiastical of the realm, ail ecclesiastical persons, of what rank or condition soever, who have been admitted into Holy Orders of the United Church of England and Ireland, ought to adhere to and maintain with constancy and sin- cerity the doctrine and teaching of the Church; and that whosoever after having been so admitted, and having sub- scribed and declared his assent to the Articles of Religion agreed upon by the Archbishop and Bishops of both pro- vinces and the whole clergy, in the convocation holden at London in the year of our Lord 1562, and ratified by royal authority, shall revolt from, or impugn, or promul- gate doctrines or positions contrary to, or inconsistent with, the said Articles, or any of them, or any of the doctrines therein contained, or shall utter, publish, promulgate, or declare anything contrary to, or in derogation of, the doc- trine and teaching of the said Church, as contained and set forth in the book entitled “ The Book of Common “* Prayer, and Administration of the Sacraments and other “ Rites and Ceremonies of the Church, according to the “use of the Church of England, together with the Psalter “or Psalms of David, pointed as they are to be said or * sung in Churches, and the form and manner of making, “ ordaining, and consecrating of Bishops, Priests, and “ Deacons,” ought to be punished and corrected according to the gravity of his offence and the exigency of the law. The Srconp Count charged that Dr. Williams was Vicar of Broad Chalke. ABSTRACT OF THE INDICTMENT. xi The Tuirp Count was formal. The Fourtu Count charged a publication in the Diocese of Salisbury. The Firru Count charged that the following preface was prefixed to the Lssays and Reviews with Dr. Williams’s consent: —* To the Reader :—It will be understood that “the Authors of the ensuing Essays are responsible 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 illustrate 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 conventional * language, and from traditional methods of treatment.” The Srxru Count charged that nine editions of the book were published without any substantial alteration in Dr. Williams’s Review. The Szventu Count quoted the following passages :— At pages 60 and 61—* As in his gypt our author sifts “the historical date of the Bible, so in his Gott in der “ Geschichte, he expounds its directly religious element. * 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, xu ABSTRACT OF THE INDICTMENT. ce (<9 ce ¢ aN € ny ce (<4 ce (19 ce ce ce ce ee ce 66 ce ce ce ce ce (14 ee ce ce (T9 ce ¢ 6¢ c¢ who forbid us trust in God or in conscience, unless we kill our souls with 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 freedom, he finds record of the spiritual giants whose experience generated the religious atmosphere we breathe.” At pages 82 and 83—“ If we would 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 subject-matter, both spiritual affection and metaphysical 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 faith existing in men’s minds anterior to Christianity, and renewed with deep echo from living hearts in many a generation. Again, on the side of external criticism, we find the evidences of our canonical books and of the patristic authors nearest to them, are sufficient to prove illustration in outward act of principles perpetually true ; but not adequate to guarantee narratives inherently in- credible, or precepts evidently wrong. Hence we are obliged to assume in ourselves a verifying faculty, not unlike the discretion which a mathematician 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 expressly told, we are to have ABSTRACT OF THE INDICTMENT. Xl * the witness in ourselves. It is not our part to dictate to « Almighty God, that He 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 He « 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 element, and its records * be exempt from historical law. Rather, we may argue, “ the more Divine the germ, the more human must be the * development.” At pages 77 and 78—“ But, if such a notion alarms “ those who think that, apart from omniscience belonging to ‘** the Jews, the proper conclusion of reason is atheism; it is not inconsistent with the idea that Almighty God has * been pleased to educate men and nations, employing “ imagination no less than conscience, and suffering His * Jessons to play freely within the limits of humanity and ‘its shortcomings. Nor will any fair reader rise from the “ prophetical disquisitions, without feeling that he has * been under the guidance of a master’s hand. The great “result is to vindicate the work of the Eternal Spirit; “ that abiding influence, which, as our church teaches us in the Ordination 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 con- * oregation. Bold as such a theory of inspiration may XIV ABSTRACT OF THE INDICTMENT. “ 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 promised illumina- “ tion from the Spirit which dwelt in them. Hence, when “ we find our Prayer-book constructed on the idea of the ** Church being an inspired society, instead of objecting “ that every one of us is fallible, we should define inspira~ “tion consistently 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 passionless * machines, and calling Luther and Milton ‘ uninspired,’ “Jet him co-operate in researches by which his theory, if “ true, will be triumphantly confirmed.” It charged that in these passages Dr. Williams did ad- visedly maintain and affirm that the Bible or Holy Scripture is an expression of devout reason, and the written voice of the congregation, not the Word of God, nor containing any special revelation of His truth, or of His dealings with mankind, nor the rule of our faith. It alleged that this doctrine was contrary to the sixth, seventh, and twentieth articles of religion, and to the teaching of the Church as con- tained in :— 1. The Epistle for Christmas Day. Heb. i. 1. 2. The Epistle for the Epiphany. Eph. iii. 1. 3. The proper preface in the Communion Service for Whit Sunday and seven days after, all of which were set out at length. ABSTRACT OF THE INDICTMENT. XV The E1autn Count extracted the following passages :— At pages 65, 66, and 67—“ In our own country each “ successive defence of the prophecies, in proportion as its * author was able, detracted something from the extent of * literal prognostication; and either laid stress on the “ moral element, or urged a second, as the spiritual sense. * Even Butler foresaw the possibility that every prophecy “in the Old Testament might have its elucidation in con- *‘ temporaneous history; but literature was not his strong ** point, and he turned aside, endeavouring to limit it, from “an unwelcome idea. Bishop Chandler is said to have “ thought twelve passages in the Old Testament directly “ Messianic; others restricted this character to five. “* Paley ventures to quote only one. Bishop Kidder! con- * ceded freely an historical sense in Old Testament texts “remote from adaptations in the New. The apostolic ** Middleton pronounced firmly for the same principle ; “© Archbishop Newcome? and others proved in details its “necessity. Coleridge, in a suggestive letter, preserved *‘in the memoirs of Cary, the translator of Dante, threw * secular prognostication altogether out of the idea of “ prophecy.? Dr. Arnold, and his truest followers, bear, ? Collected in the Boyle Lectures. 2 A Literal Translation of the Prophets, from Isaiah to Malachi, with Notes by Lowth, Blayney, Newcome, Wintle, Horsley, &c. London, 1836. A book unequal, but useful for want of a better, and of which a revision, if not an entire recast, with the aid of recent expositors, might employ our biblical scholars. 8 « Of prophecies in the sense of prognostication I utterly deny that there is any instance delivered by one of the illustrious Diadoche, whom the Jewish church comprised in the name Prophets—and I shall regard Cyrus as an exception, when I believe the 137th Psalm to have been com- posed by David. [“ Nay, XVi ABSTRACT OF THE INDICTMENT. * not always consistently, on the same side. On the other * hand, the declamatory assertions, so easy in pulpits or on platforms, and aided sometimes by powers which * produce silence rather than conviction, have not only “kept alive, but magnified with uncritical exaggeration, whatever the fathers had dreamt or modern rhetoric “could add, tending to make prophecy miraculous. * Keith’s edition of Newton need not be here discussed. *“ Davison, of Oriel, with admirable skill, threw his ‘“ areument into a series as it were of hypothetical syllo- “ cisms, with only the defect (which some readers over- “‘ look) that his minor premiss can hardly in a single ‘‘ instance be proved. Yet the stress which he lays on “the moral element of prophecy atones for his sophistry “as regards the predictive. On the whole, even in « England, there is a wide gulf between the arguments “of our genuine critics, with the convictions of our most “learned clergy, on the one side, and the assumptions “of popular declamation on the other. This may “be seen on a comparison of Kidder with Keith. ‘* But in Germany there has been a pathway stream- “ing with light, from Eichhorn to Ewald, aided by “ the poetical penetration of Herder, and the philological * researches of Gesenius, throughout which the value of the moral element in prophecy has been progressively “yaised, and that of the directly predictive, whether ** secular or Messianic, has been lowered.” “ Nay, I will go farther, and assert that the contrary belief, the hypo- thesis of prognostication, is in irreconcilable oppugnancy to our Lord’s declaration, that the times hath the Father reserved to Himself’? — Memoir of Cary, vol. ii. p, 180. ce €é (a9 ABSTRACT OF THE INDICTMENT. XVli At pages 67 and 68—“'To this inheritance of opinion Baron Bunsen succeeds. Knowing these things and writing for men who know them, he has neither the ad- vantage in argument of unique knowledge, nor of unique ignorance.” At pages 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, and 74—“*He may read the Psalm xxxiy., that ‘not a bone of the righteous shall be broken,’ but he must feel a difficulty in detaching ‘ this from the context, so as to make it a prophecy of the crucifixion. If he accepts mere versions of Psalm xxii. 17, he may wonder how ‘piercing the hands and the feet’ can fit into the whole passage; but if he prefers the most ancient Hebrew reading, he finds, instead of ‘ piercing, the comparison ‘like a lion,’ and this corre- sponds sufiiciently with the ‘dogs’ of the first clause; though a morally certain emendation would make the parallel more perfect by reading the word ‘lions’ in both clauses. In either case, the staring monsters are in- tended, by whom Israel is surrounded and torn. Again he finds in Hosea that the Lord loved Israel when he was young, and called him out of Egypt to be his son ; but he must feel, with Bishop Kidder, that such a citation is rather accommodated to the flight of Joseph into Egypt, than a prediction to be a ground of argument. Fresh from the services of Christmas, he may sincerely exclaim, Unto us a child is born; but he knows that the Hebrew translated Mighty God, is at least disputable, that perhaps it means only Strong and Mighty One, Father of an-Age; and he can never listen to any one who pretends that the maiden’s child of Isaiah vii. 16, was not to be born in the reign of Ahaz, as a sign b XVill ABSTRACT OF THE INDICTMENT. “ against the Kings Pekah and Rezin. In the case of “ Daniel he may doubt whether all parts of the book are “of one age, or what is the starting-point of the seventy * weeks; but two results are clear beyond fair doubt, that “the period of weeks ended in the reign of Antiochus “«¢ Epiphanes, and that those portions of the book, supposed “to be specially predictive, are a history of past occur- “ rences up to that reign. When so vast an induction on “the destructive side has been gone through, it avails “ little that some passages may be doubtful, one perhaps in “ Zechariah, and one in Isaiah, capable of being made “directly Messianic, and a chapter possibly in Deutero- “ nomy foreshadowing the final fall of Jerusalem. Even ‘these few cases, the remnant of so much confident “ rhetoric, tend to melt, if they are not already melted, in ** the crucible of searching inquiry. If our German had ‘* jgnored all that the masters of philology have proved on “ these subjects, his countrymen would have raised a storm * of ridicule, at which he must have drowned himself in “ the Neckar. “Great then is Baron Bunsen’s merit, in accepting ‘frankly the belief of scholars, and yet not despairing of « Hebrew prophecy as a witness to the kingdom of God. «The way of doing so left open to him, was to show, *‘ pervading the prophets, those deep truths which lie at ** the heart of Christianity, and to trace the growth of such “ ideas, the belief in a righteous God, and the nearness of “man to God, the power of prayer, and the victory “of self-sacrificing patience, ever expanding in men’s “hearts until the fulness of time came, and the ideal “of the Divine thought was fulfilled in the Son 4 ¢ nn € " ce « Pa 6 nn < " ‘ " “6 ce 6 oy “e 7 PN 6 rN « Pa 4 " ce 4 nn 6 Py 6 na ‘ " 6 a « * ‘ “ “ee 4 ." ce se ce ce ABSTRACT OF THE INDICTMENT. xix of Man. Such, accordingly, is the course our author pursues, not with the critical finish of Ewald, but with large moral grasp. Why he should add to his moral and metaphysical basis of prophecy, a notion of foresight by vision of particulars, or a kind of clairvoyance, though he admits it to be a natural gift, consistent with fallibility, is not so easy to explain. One would wish he might have intended only the power of seeing the ideal in the actual, or of tracing the Divine Government in the movements of men. He seems to mean more than presentiment or sagacity; and this element in his system requires proof. “ The most brilliant portion of the prophetical essays is the treatment of the later Isaiah. With the insertion of four chapters concerning Hezekiah from the histories of the Kings, the words and deeds of the elder Isaiah apparently close. It does not follow that all the pro- phecies arranged earlier in the book are from his lips; probably they are not; but it is clear to demonstration that the later chapters (xl, &c.) are upon the stooping of Nebo, and the bowing down of Babylon, when the Lord took out of the hand of Jerusalem the cup of trembling ; for the glad tidings of the decree of return were heard upon the mountains; and the people went forth, not with haste, or flight, for their God went before them, and was their rereward (ch. lit.) ‘So they went forth with joy, and were led forth with peace (ch. liv.) So the arm of the Lord was laid bare, and his servant who had foretold it was now counted wise, though none had believed his report. We cannot take a portion out of this continuous song, and by dividing it as a chapter, b—2 XX ABSTRACT OF THE INDICTMENT. “separate its primary meaning from what precedes and * follows. The servant in chapters lii. and Iii. must have “ relation to the servant in chapters xli. and xlix. Who “was this servant, that had foretold the exile and the “return, and had been a man of grief, rejected of his “people, imprisoned and treated as a malefactor? The “ oldest Jewish tradition, preserved in Origen, and to be “inferred from Justin, said the chosen people—in oppo- “sition to heathen oppressors—an opinion which suits “ch. xlix. ver. 3. Nor is the later exposition of the “ Targum altogether at variance; for though Jonathan * speaks of the Messiah, it is in the character of a Judaic *‘ deliverer ; and his expressions about ‘the holy people's “ being multiplied, and seeing their sanctuary rebuilt, “ especially when he calls the holy people a remnant, may “be fragments of a tradition older than his time. It is “idle, with Pearson, to quote Jonathan as a witness to the “ Christian interpretation, unless his conception of the ** Messiah were ours. But the idea of the Anointed One, “which in some of the Psalms belongs to Israel, shifted “ from time to time, being applied now to people, and now “to king or prophet, until at length it assumed a sterner * form, as the Jewish spirit was hardened by persecutions *‘ into a more vindictive hope. The first Jewish expositor ‘who loosened, without breaking Rabbinical fetters, « R, Saadiah, inthe ninth century, named Jeremiah as the “ man of grief, and emphatically the prophet of the return, ‘ rejected of his people. Grotius, with his usual sagacity, “ divined the same clue; though Michaelis says upon it, “ wessime Grotius. Baron Bunsen puts together, with “‘ masterly analysis, the illustrative passages of Jeremiah ; “ nn * " na DN “ n na nn “a "“ “ oN “a PN ON PN “ "“ * " a “ ray a be 6 n ce qs 66 66 oe ABSTRACT OF THE INDICTMENT. XX and it is difficult to resist the conclusion to which they tend. Jeremiah compares his whole people to sheep going astray, and himself to ‘a lamb or an ox, brought to the slaughter.’ He was taken from prison; and his generation, or posterity, none took account of; he inter- ceded for his people in prayer: but was not the less despised, and a man of grief, so that no sorrow was like his; men assigned his grave with the wicked, and his tomb with the oppressors; all who followed him seemed cut off out of the land of the living, yet his seed pro- longed their days; his prophecy was fulfilled and the arm of the Eternal laid bare; he was counted wise on the return; his place in the book of Sirach shows how eminently he was enshrined in men’s thoughts as the servant of God; and in the book of Maccabees he is the gray prophet, who is seen in vision, fulfilling his task of interceding for the people. «This is an imperfect sketch, but may lead readers to consider the arguments for applying Isaiah hi. and lil. to Jeremiah. Their weight (Gin the master’s hand) is so great, that if any single person should be selected, they prove Jeremiah should be the one. Nor are they a slight illustration of the historical sense of that famous chapter, which in. the original,is a history. Still the general analogy of the Old Testament makes collective Israel, or the prophetic remnant, especially the servant of Jehovah, and the comparison of chapters xlii., xlix. may permit us to think the oldest interpretation the “truest; with only this admission, that the figure of ‘«* Jeremiah stood forth amongst his prophets; and tinged “the delineation of the true Israel, that is, the faithful XX ABSTRACT OF THE INDICTMENT. “a * remnant who had been disbelieved—just as the figure of 4 oa Laud or Hammond might represent the Caroline Church © in the eyes of her poet. a Py « Tf this seems but a compromise, it may be justified by Ewald’s phrase, ‘ Die wenigen Treuen im Eile Jeremjah und Andre, though he makes the servant idealized “ Israel.” nn _ “If any sincere Christian now asks, is not, then, our n oN Saviour spoken of in Isaiah? let him open his New Testament, and ask therewith John the Baptist, whether he was Elias? If he finds the Baptist answering J am na a not, yet our Lord testifies that in spirit and power this was Elias; a little reflection will show how the historical Dy Py representation in Isaiah lili. is of some suffering prophet ‘or remnant, yet the truth and patience, the grief and triumph, have their highest fulfilment in Him who said, ‘Father, not my will, but thine. But we must not distort the prophets, to prove the divine worD incarnate, and then from the incarnation reason back to the sense of prophecy.” It alleged that in these passages Dr. Williams did advisedly maintain or 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 prognostication of future persons or events. It charged that this doctrine is contrary to, and inconsistent with the sixth and. seventh articles of religion, that part of the Nicene Creed which affirms that the Holy Ghost spake by the prophets, and the following epistles, gospels, and proper lessons :— 1. The Gospel for the Monday in Easter week. St. La © n a © ry ¢ s 6 DN ABSTRACT OF THE INDICTMENT. XX Luke, xxiv. 13 (the history of the two disciples going to Emmaus). 2. The Epistle and Gospel for the Tuesday in Easter week. Acts xili. 26, and Luke xxiv. 36. 3. The Gospel for the first Sunday after Christmas. Matt. i. 18. 4, The first lesson for Christmas day (morning ser- vice). Isaiah ix. to v. 8. 5. The first lesson for Christmas day (evening service), Isaiah vii. v. 10-17. 6. The proper lessons for the Sundays in Advent. 7. The proper lessons for the Sundays after Epiphany. 8. The first lesson for the evening service on Good Friday (Isaiah, chapter liii.) The Ninru Count extracted the following passages :— At pages 76 and 77—“ In distinguishing the man “ Daniel from our-book of Daniel, and in bringing the “ latter as low as the reign of Epiphanes, our author only “* follows the admitted necessities of the case. « The truth seems, that starting like many a patriot * bard of our own, from a name traditionally sacred, the “ writer used it with no deceptive intention, as a dramatic * form which. dignified his encouragement of his country- “men in their great struggle against Antiochus. The “ original place of the book, amongst the later Hagio- “ orapha of the Jewish canon, and the absence of any “mention of it by the son of Sirach, strikingly-confirm “ this view of its origin; and, if some obscurity rests upon * details, the general conclusion, that the book contains no XXIV ABSTRACT OF THE INDICTMENT. * predictions, except by analogy and type, can hardly be “ oainsayed. But it may not the less, with some of the “latest Psalms, have nerved the men of Israel, when “they turned to flight the armies of the aliens; and “it suggests, in the godless invader, no slight forecast of * Caligula again invading the Temple with like abomina- * tion, as well as of whatever exalts itself against faith and ** conscience, to the end of the world. It is time for divines “‘ to recognize these things, since, with their opportunities “ of study, the current error is as discreditable to them, as * for the well-meaning crowd, who are taught to identify “ it with their creed, it is a matter of grave compassion. “It provokes a smile on serious topics to observe the «zeal with which our critic vindicates the personality of Jonah, and the originality of his hymn (the latter being generally thought doubtful), while he proceeds to explain 66 66 “that the narrative of our book, in which the hymn is *‘ imbedded, contains a late legend, founded on misconcep- “tion. One can imagine the cheers which the opening of * such an essay might evoke in some of our own circles, “‘ changing into indignation as the distinguished foreigner “ developed his views. After this he might speak more « gently of mythical theories.” Tt alleged that in these passages Dr. Williams did advisedly maintain and affirm, that the Prophet Jonah was not a real historical person, and that the canonical book, written by him and incorporated in the Old Testament, was not really written by him, and has not any authority binding upon the church, and that the Book of Daniel was not the work of the Prophet Daniel, but of some other person, and ts not an authority binding on the church. It charged that ABSTRACT OF THE INDICTMENT. XXV this doctrine is contrary to the sixth article of religion, and to the following question and answer in the Ordination Service :—* The Bishop—Do you unfeignedly believe all ee ce the canonical Scriptures of the Old and New Testament? Answer—I do believe them.” The Tentx Count extracted the following passage :— At pages 83, 84, 85, and a note, numbered (3), at the foot of page 84—“ Our author then believes St. Paul, ce ce ce 66 6é 66 (9 ce ce 6 79 « Neque sermo aliud quam Deus, neque caro aliud quam homo,” and “ex carne homo, ex spiritu Deus.”—Tertullian adv. Prax. c. xxvii. Comp. Romans i. 1-3. XXXVHl ABSTRACT OF THE INDICTMENT. r the ‘witness in ourselves. It is not our part to dictate to Almighty God, that he 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 He bound to accompany His gift by a special form of record.1_ 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 element, and its records be exempt from historical law. Rather we may argue, the more Divine the germ, the more human must be the development.” Essays and Reviews, pp. 85-87. “Those who imagine that the laws of criticism are arbitrary (or as they say, subjective), may learn a different lesson from the array of passages, the balance of evidence, and the estimate of each author’s point of view, with which the picture of Christian antiquity is unrolled in the pages of the Hippolytus. Every triumph of our faith, in purifying life, or in softening and enlightening bar- barism, is there expressed in the lively records of Liturgies and Canons; and again the shadows of night approach, with monkish fanaticism and imperial tyranny, amidst intrigues of bishops who play the parts, alternately, of courtier and of demagogue.. “The picture was too truly painted for that ecclesiastical school which appeals loudest to antiquity, and has most reason to dread it. While they imagine a system of Divine immutability, or one in which, at worst, holy fathers unfolded reverently Apostolic oracles, the true history of the church exhibits the turbulent growth of youth; a democracy, with all its passions, transforming ! Butler’s Analogy. Part ii. ch. iii. Hooker, Ecel. Pol. Books i. ii. EXTRACTS FROM ESSAYS AND REVIEWS. xxxix itself into sacerdotalism, and a poetry, with its figures, partly represented by doctrine, and partly perverted. Even the text of Scripture fluctuated in sympathy with the changes of the church, especially in passages bearing on asceticism, and the fuller development of the Trinity. The first Christians held that the heart was purified by faith ; the accompanying symbol, water, became by degrees 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 connection with tt. Sacrifice with the Psalmist, meant not the goat’s or heifer’s blood-shedding, but the contrite heart expressed by it. So, with St. Paul, it meant the presenting of our souls and bodies, as an oblation of the reason, or worship of the mind. The ancient liturgies contain prayers that God would make our sacrifices ‘rational,’ that is, spiritual. Religion was thus moralized by a sense of the righteous- ness of God; and morality transfigured into religion, by a sense of His holiness. Vestiges of this earliest creed yet remain in our communion service. As in life, so in sacra- ment, the first Christians offered themselves in the Spirit of Christ; therefore,in His name. But when the priest took the place of the congregation, when the sacramental signs were treated as the natural body, and the bodily suf- ferings of Christ enhanced above the self-sacrifice of His will even to the death of the cross, the centre of Christian faith became inverted, though its form remained. Men forgot that the writer to the Hebrews exalts the blood of an everlasting, that is, of a spiritual covenant; for what is fleshly vanishes away. ‘The angels who hover with phials, catching the drops from the cross, are pardonable in art, but make a step in theology towards transubstantiation. x] ABSTRACT OF THE INDICTMENT. Salvation from evil through sharing the Saviour’s spirit, was shifted into a notion of purchase from God through the price of Eis bodily pangs. The deep drama of heart and mind became externalized into a commercial transfer, and this effected by a form of ritual. So with the more specu- lative Fathers, the doctrine of the Trinity was a profound metaphysical problem, wedded to what seemed conse- quences of the incarnation. But in ruder hands, it be- came a materialism almost idolatrous, or an arithmetical enigma! Even now, different acceptors of the same doctrinal terms hold many shades of conception between a philosophical view which recommends itself as easiest to believe, and one felt to be so irrational, that it calls in the aid of terror. ‘ Quasi non unitas, irrationaliter collecta, heeresin faciat; et Trinitas rationaliter expensa, veritatem constituat,’ said Tertullian.” 2 1 See this shown, with just rebuke of some Oxford sophistries, in the learned Bishop Kaye’s Council of Nicea, London, 1853; a book of admirable moderation, though hardly of speculative power. See pp. 163, 168, 194, 199, 219, 226, 251, 252. 2 Adv, Prax. ¢. iii. ABSTRACT OF THE ARGUMENT. Tue general principle of Dr. Williams’s defence as to the first five charges in the indictment (counts 7-11, both inclusive), is, that all questions relating to the mode, the extent, the nature, and the effect on the books of the Bible of the inspiration of those books; all questions of criti- cism ; and all questions of interpretation; are by law open questions, which the clergy, by their ordination vow, “to “ be diligent in such studies as help to the knowledge of ** Holy Scriptures,” are bound in conscience to consider. The proof of this is contained in the following propo- sitions :— I. The law upon this subject is to be found in the Thirty-nine Articles, the Rubrics, and Formularies, and not, as alleged by the prosecutors, in the Gospels, Epistles, and Proper Lessons selected for particular days. If. Protestant Christians must believe either that the Bible contains, or that it constitutes the Christian reve- lation. In the first case, they may believe that the Bible xlil ABSTRACT OF THE ARGUMENT. is fallible; but in either case, they must believe that the revelation is of Divine authority, and that so much of the Bible as constitutes that revelation, whether it be the _ whole or a part, is also of Divine authority. IIL The. general doctrine of the nature and authority of the Bible must, from the nature of the case, be com- posed of answers to the following questions :— 1. What specific books are entitled to be considered as parts of the Bible? This is the question of canonicity. 2. How far was God the author, directly or indirectly, of the original books? By what process was his authorship effected? Did it extend to the whole or to part of the books? So far as it did extend, did it imply absolute truth in any and what part of the matter written ? These questions taken together constitute the question of inspira- tion. 3. How far do the existing copies of the canonical books correspond with the originals? By whom were the original books written, and at what time? These, and other questions of the same kind taken together, constitute the question of criticism. 4, What is the meaning of the contents of the books ? and to what class of composition, as poetry or prose, history or fiction, do they and each part of them respectively belong? These, and other questions of the same kind collectively, constitute. the question of interpretation. ABSTRACT OF THE ARGUMENT. xlii IV. The 6th, 7th, and 20th Articles of religion deter- mine the question of canonicity, but leave open the questions of inspiration, criticism, and interpretation. VY. The profession of unfeigned belief in the canonical Scriptures made by deacons at their ordination is a conscientious test only, and is of no dogmatic authority whatever. If it were of dogmatic authority, it would close none of the questions left open by the articles of religion. VI. A comparison of the Thirty-nine Articles with the Westminster Confession and the creed of Pius IV. proves that the liberty left by the Thirty-nine Articles on the inspiration, criticism, and interpretation of Scripture was left intentionally. VII. The writings of several eminent divines of the seventeenth century show the reasons why this liberty was left, and thus corroborate the assertion that in point of fact it was left. VIII. The objection that at and after the Reformation most of the divines of the Church of England believed, in fact, in the infallibility of the Bible, is irrelevant; as they viewed that belief, in so far as they held it, as matter of opinion, and not as matter of faith. IX. Throughout the Deistical controversy of the latter part of the seventeenth and the whole of the eighteenth century, the principal divines of the Church of England exercised the liberty left to them by :the Thirty-nine Articles, by denying that either the infallibility, or the circumstantial accuracy, of the Bible were articles of the xliv ABSTRACT OF THE ARGUMENT. Christian faith; by admitting that the Bible contained errors; and by defending it on the ground that the sub- stantial truth of its contents was proved by historical and other evidence. X. Eminent divines of the Church of England of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries further exercised the same liberty by maintaining, that in all matters of science, science and not Scripture is the test of truth; and that in case of a difference between them, science is to be believed in preference to Scripture. APPLICATION OF THESE PRINCIPLES TO THE SPECIFIC CHARGES. Count 7.—Charges a denial that Scripture is the Word of God, containing a special revelation of his truth and of his dealings with mankind, and that it is the rule of our faith. Ewidence.—Three passages cited, p. Xi.-xiv. Answer.—The passages charged amount to a theory as to the nature of the inspiration of Scripture; lawful be- cause the question of inspiration is open, and also because it agrees with the language of the Prayer-book and Homilies on the subject. Count 8.—Charges an affirmation 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 prognostication. Evidence.—Passages cited, p. xv.-xxiii. ABSTRACT OF THE ARGUMENT. xlv Answer, 1.—The whole question of the nature of pro- phecy is open, as forming part of the general liberty of interpretation. 2. Dr. Williams’s principle of the interpretation of prophecy has been adopted by eminent divines, and he differs from them, if at all, only in the extent of its application. Counts 9 and 10.—Charge :— . A denial that Jonah was a real historical person. . A denial that Jonah wrote the Book of Jonah. . A denial that Daniel wrote the Book of Daniel. 4, A denial that the Books of Jonah, Daniel, the Reve- lation, the Epistle to the Hebrews, and the 2nd Epistle of St. Peter, are parts of Holy Scripture, whose authority Se)P LS Nae is binding on the church. Evidence.—Extracts cited, pp. Xxiil., xxiv. and xxv., Xxvi. Answer.—As to (1) and (2).—That Dr. Williams did not say what is complained of. As to (3).—i. That he had a right to deny the author- ship of Daniel under the liberty of criticism. ii. That eminent divines have used the same right as to the same and other books. As to (4).—That he did not say what is complained of, and that the charge proceeds on a mistaken notion as to the meaning of canonicity. Count 11.—Charges an affirmation that the statements of Holy Scripture as to historical facts may be read and understood in a wholly figurative sense, and in a non- natural sense of the plain words and purport thereof. Hvidence.—Extracts cited, p. xxvii., xxviii. xlvi ABSTRACT OF THE ARGUMENT. Answer.—1. That Dr. Williams is responsible for the extracts cited in part only. 2. That the Church of England directs, sanctions, and practises the figurative interpretation of the statements of Holy Scripture as to historical facts, and the understanding of its language in a non-natural sense of the plain words and purport thereof. 3. That the passages complained of contain no figura- tive or non-natural interpretations of any statements at all, but consist entirely of conjectures as to the meaning of figures. Counts 12-15.—Both inclusive, charge denials of the doctrines of the church on the Atonement, Baptism, Origi~ ~ nal Sin, the Incarnation, and Justification by Faith. Evidence.—Passages cited, p. xxix-xxxi. Answer 1.—That the passages complained of are garbled extracts from two longer passages,” the first of which is an account of Baron Bunsen’s Hippolytus, and the second, an account of the corruptions of the medizeval clergy ; and that they are so quoted in the indictment as to attribute to Dr. Williams views which he has not expressed. 2. As to three of the said passages—viz. the first passage in the 12th count, the passage in the 14th, and the passage in the 15th count. That Dr. Williams states in a passage f detached from its context, and inserted in count 7, to which it has no relation, that he reports them for discussion, and lays down the principle on which the discussion shall proceed. 3. As to the second passage in the 12th count, and the * See above, p. xxxv-xl, t Page xii., second paragraph. ABSTRACT OF THE ARGUMENT. xlvii passages in the 13th count. That the said passages are sarcasms, directed against views of Baptism and the Atonement, maintained by the medizval clergy. 4, As to all the said passages, that they are ‘not contrary to the doctrines of the Church of England. Count 16. — Charges that Dr. Williams approved of, adopted, and expressed his adherence and assent to the substance of the said Essay or Review, as well those parts and words of which other persons were the original writers, as those written by himself. Evidence.—Passage cited, p. XXXil., XXX. Answer.—That the count is bad in law, and charges no offence, and that it is also false in fact. Count 17.—Charges that the manifest scope, tendency, object, and design of the whole essay, is to inculcate a dis- belief in the Divine inspiration and authority of the Holy Scriptures, &c. (see the count in full, p. xxxiv.) Answer 1.—That the count is bad in law. 2. That the scope, tendency, and design of the essay is altogether different from what is alleged, is permitted by the Church of England, and is in accordance with the writings of eminent divines. 3. That the count in substance calls upon the court to assume legislative functions. 4. That should the court assume such functions, it would be impolitic to exercise them in the manner sug- gested. 5. That it is illegal to assume them at all. e ' " - ?) i } 7 - ia be a 2 5 ae eee : The a 7 ~ Tes mi oo te * heat “yer men va Winn’ prior n ee eV upe sede re ay a SE teens hehe ern? 4 tiag yo f a ve hg Aes fs Ay: sy re aE Free wun nt Bin. Heid ale sf ihe Yehdiunien min [ad eu te . a - aa AAW Pail be TE Niiwl eh - Bat bade eee lV ee Mi Ba ’ sy ri F o'A i a4 ty { Tn : faa a ¢ Fl ee } ; 7 ns ae te | Parl , rs ) eer % . Pr, che « wa * ; P . : 1 is Ne Am) i‘ IpPgrt..% ot , r Chiec lf cibeearak aha Sousa iin be Hod wh e0toce SN: PRO ¢ ' A ‘ r oy; y aye ty Se A ¢ Oe reas r7 Z ee ; i sa tuy 4 ry ji u ae ; re Oe 34 ‘| ‘ af Vee “it ay +/ AY ¥ : ; £ . : ’ Tey ; ( ig ; ae : . at +9 - be pk” be Pile i 4 i4 (Jal ® be | ’ . 7 -< a one V4 yee SS ry fy 4 5 a) Py é : f : % a " : 4

' > ae ‘ "a a het rr yi « Hie lat “wig ; ¥ e eee a Poraiigey a “Sib Avi Norn Wet Ainia high oof tty pat &y AL ats ; is s a val alton gal ans Psidrontid ieee tok Ole aie a ; . ix! sectarian. wh anal ootolaw Minion eal, irs Ge ier her popes . , “ae 7 Hi hy oud i “2 ot ty c Boi wes Pasi ic i is q é , ier? VW : se oe ‘ ia ’ ' ie es a ee hie » ot is L« ‘ j . - a r =< J ’ A a) eee) i x a7 ¥ : a uh 7 t ¥ 7 t 2) U 7 \ i ee $ i - i” fo : > ia y v ny y i — a “i Pe ener Ss) aS DEFENCE OF DR. WILLIAMS. PAK Ll. STATEMENT OF THE LEGAL PRINCIPLES OF THE CASE.—OBSER- VATIONS ON THE Form or PLEADING ADOPTED.—EXAMINATION OF THE 6TH, 7TH, AND 20TH ArTICLES oF RELIGION.— EXAMINATION OF THE QUESTION AND ANSWER IN THE OrDI- NATION SERVICE FOR DEACoNS.—CoMPARISON OF THE THIRTY- NINE ARTICLES WITH THE CREED or Pius IV. AND THE WESTMINSTER CONFESSION. — [THE DIFFERENCE EXPLAINED FROM THE WRITINGS OF DIVINES OF THE SEVENTEENTH CENTURY. (Delivered in the Court or Ancues, Dec. 21st, 1861.) May IT PLEASE your LorpsHIp,— I am now to address you on behalf of the defendant in this case, and if it were one of an ordinary description, I should not have attempted to add much to the address which you have already heard. In a common case, my duty would have been strictly subordinate: but this case is not a common one. Its importance is tremendous. The questions which it raises are so nume- rous and so wide that, as your lordship justly observed yesterday afternoon, it is a hardship to the court to be called upon to decide them. 7 1 2 DEFENCE OF DR. WILLIAMS. Under these circumstances, Dr. Deane and I came to the conclusion that the course most favourable for the interests of the defendant and for those of justice would be that each of us should pursue our researches independently, and that each of us should lay before the court their result. I make these observations in order to request indulgence, if, in the discharge of the duty thus cast upon me, I some- times travel over part of the ground already occupied by Dr. Deane, and if I occasionally remind the court of authorities which he has quoted. One word more. The importance of the case weighs me down with a sense of the responsibility which it involves; for I cannot disguise from myself that the issue is nothing less than this: ay or no, does the Law of England forbid the clergy of the Church of England to use their minds? ‘There is this further issue, the importance of which is hardly less tremendous. Is, the Church of England to maintain its position as an Established Church, as a church of which the doctrines are established and regulated by law, or is it to sink to the position of a voluntary association of which the doctrines are regulated from time to time by the public opinion, I might go further and say, the public prejudice of the majority of the laity who belong to it? Such being the questions at issue, I proceed to address myself without further preface to its substantial merits. My first observation has reference to a simple matter of phraseology. ‘To avoid confusion between the articles of religion, the articles of charge, and the individual articles of which those articles of charge are composed, I shall, with your lordship’s permission, describe the articles of charge, the large document in several sheets which I hold in my hand, by the familiar common-law term of “ the indictment.” I shall describe the several articles of which PRINCIPLES OF THE GORHAM CASE. 3 it consists as the first, second, and third, &c. “ counts” of that indictment, and I shall reserve the word “ articles” to denote the thirty-nine articles of religion. The first question which will naturally attract your lord- ship’s attention; the first question which was considered on similar occasions, by your lordship in the case of Burder y. Heath, and by the Privy Council in the all-important case of the Bishop of Exeter v. Gorham, is this—What are the principles upon which the judge is to regulate his decision ? First then—In what capacity do you sit here? You are sitting here as judge and jury in a criminal case—as a judge administering a code of criminal law—as a jury, to deal with the evidence which is submitted to you. In the one capacity you are bound to construe strictly the letter of the law, and in favour of the defendant, if there is the possibility of a doubt. In the other capacity, you are bound to give the defendant the benefit of any doubt which may exist in your mind. On the other hand, you are not sitting here as a divine. You are not to decide on the truth of Dr. Williams’s opinions; you are to decide on this question only—Was he forbidden by law to maintain the opinions which he has maintained, under pain of being punished by deprivation of the living of Broad Chalke? That is the narrow issue— narrow in one sense, wide enough in another—to which you are confined. This being so, what is the principle upon which you are to proceed? I lay down in the very first instance— because I propose to make it the basis and foundation of the whole of my case—this broad principle, that your lordship is bound by the decision of the Privy Council in the case of the Bishop of Exeter v. Gorham. That prin- ciple—a principle which will, I think, be looked upon in ]l—2 4 DEFENCE OF DR. WILLIAMS. future times as the Magna Charta of the clergy of the Church of England—is contained in these words :—* If it “were supposed that all points of doctrine were decided “ by the Church of England, the law could not consider “ any point as left doubtful. The application of the law or * the doctrine of the Church of England to any theological “ question which arose must be the subject of decision, and ‘¢ the decision would be governed by the construction of the “ terms in which the doctrine of the Church is expressed, *¢ viz. the construction which, on the whole, would seem “ most likely to be right.”* I pause for a moment on that paragraph. It describes the ordinary principle upon which the courts of common law exercise functions com- mitted to them by the Constitution. In questions of con- tract, and in questions of tort, there is no such thing as an open question. When a man comes before the court and says, “I have experienced such a wrong; I have “ entered into such an agreement,” it is not competent to a court of common law to say, “ This is a matter which has «‘ never been decided before; it is a matter upon which we “have no authority; it is, therefore, a matter on which . ‘“‘ we decline to express any opinion.” Your lordship knows that there are a class of cases known by the collective name of “cases of first impression,” which are amongst the most important cases decided by the common law courts. As familiar instances, [ may mention the great case of Ashby v. White,t in which it was decided, for the first time, that to refuse to take a man’s vote was to inflict upon him a wrong for which damages could be recovered, and that upon the broad general principle that the law of England allows no wrong without a remedy. Another case of less importance, but still of some importance, and * Report of the Gorham Case, by Moore, p. 464. { 1 Smith’s Leading Cases, p. 1. OPEN QUESTIONS PERMITTED IN THE CHURCH. 5 belonging to the same class, has been decided in modern times. I allude to the well-known case of Priestly v. Fowler,* in which it was, for the first time, decided that if two persons were in the service of one master, and one suffered by the negligence of the other, the master was not liable to the sufferer. When that case came before the Court of Exchequer, they had to decide upon first principles. They had to say in substance—What, upon the whole, would the authors of the Common Law of England have thought this question if it had been brought under their notice? ‘To come back to the words I have just read, they had to apply to the case, “that con- * struction which, on the whole, would seem most likely to “‘ be right.” Having illustrated that paragraph, I pass on to the next, which points out this vital distinction—that in the eccle- siastical courts a different principle prevails—that in them open questions are permitted; that many doctrinal ques- tions have not been decided by the Church of England, and that upon the questions which have not been decided full and entire liberty is left to the clergy. The paragraph is as follows:—“But if the case be, as un- “ doubtedly it is, that in the Church of England many * points of theological doctrine have not been decided, “then the first and great question which arises in such “ cases as the present is whether the disputed point is or “ was meant to be settled at all, or whether it is left open * for each member of the Church to decide for himself, “according to his own conscientious opinions. If there “be any doctrine on which the articles are silent or “ ambiguously expressed, so as to be capable of two “ meanings, we must suppose it was intended to leave that “ doctrine to private judgment, unless the Rubrics and * 3 Mee and Wel. i. 6 DEFENCE OF DR. WILLIAMS. “ Formularies clearly and distinctly decide it.. If they *“ do, we must conclude that the doctrine was decided as * the doctrine of the church; but, on the other hand, if “the expressions used in the Rubrics and Formularies “ are ambiguous, it is not to be concluded that the church “meant to establish indirectly, as a doctrine, that which “it did not establish directly as such by the Articles of “ Faith, a code avowedly made” (I cannot press those words too strongly)—‘*a code avowedly made for the * avoiding of diversities of opinion, and for the establish- “ ment of consent touching true religion.” That is the fundamental principle upon which I propose to argue this case—the principle of open questions; and I will dwell for a moment on the mode in which it is stated by the Privy Council. They decide this—If the Articles say a thing that is conclusive: if the Rubrics and Formu- laries say a thing that is conclusive also; but greater plainness is required of the Rubrics and Formularies than is required of the Articles. If there be any ambiguity in the Rubrics and Formularies (and the court will look more narrowly to the Rubrics and Formularies than to the Articles, to see if there be any ambiguity), it is not to be supposed that the church meant to establish indirectly, as a doctrine, that which it did not establish directly by the Articles of Faith. Contrasting this principle with the indictment against Dr. Williams, I am irresistibly driven to the conclusion that the indictment is a skilful, an artful, and an insidious attempt to overthrow the fundamental doctrine of the Gorham case; for, my lord, of what does the indictment consist ? It charges Dr. Williams with a variety of offences, in holding false doctrine; and it asserts, amongst other things, that it is contrary to the teaching of the church, as contained not only in various articles of reli- PLEADING PASSAGES OF SCRIPTURE. rf gion, but in a variety of passages of the Bible, which the church orders to be read upon certain days as gospels, as epistles, or as proper lessons. The first point, then, to which I have to call your lordship’s attention is this :—I request you to reform this indictment, even if you should not quash it altogether, by striking out every one of the references to anything except the Articles, the Rubrics, and the Formularies, and specially by striking out every single reference to every passage of Scripture whatever. This, I know, is a matter of pleading, but it is a matter of such vast importance that, impressed as I am with the vital import- ance of the case itself, with its vital importance to truth, and with its vital importance to the Church, I do conscien- tiously say that I am by no means sure that the question of pleading is not more important than the question of doctrine. My lord, observe what the result of this mode of framing the indictment is: they say, wherever the Church requires a passage of Scripture to be read in church, it means to lay down a certain doctrine which must not be impugned under pain of deprivation; and this court is from time to time to declare what that doctrine is. Thus, for example, your lordship is reminded* that on All Saints’ Day part of the seventh chapter of Revelation is read as the epistle for the day; and you are asked to say that that is an averment upon the part of the Church that the Book of Revelation is a part of canonical Scripture. Similarly, in another count, you are asked to infer from the fact that the first chapter of the Epistle to the Hebrews is read on Christmas Day, that the Church believes that the Bible contains a special revelation from God. I do not now dispute that this is the opinion of the Church, but you are asked to infer from the fact that Hebrews i. * See 10th count. 8 DEFENCE OF DR. WILLIAMS. is read on that particular day that the Church intended to lay down that doctrine. Upon this matter I will, in the first place, refer to a point which was mentioned by Dr. Deane, and I will ask your lordship to observe that this is an attempt to do that indirectly which the law forbids them to do directly. In Archdeacon Denison’s case, you were pressed, and pressed with a vehemence on the part of the defendant in person which I can hardly reconcile with strict decency, to allow a Scriptural argument to take place at Doctors’ Commons. The report is as follows: *—TZhe Archdeacon—‘I have “had that refused to me which never before was refused “to any man in England.” Dr. Lushington—* His Grace “has not given you permission.” The Archdeacon—* I “wish to advance my Scripture proof, and if that is re- ** fused to me, being charged with maintaining that which “is contrary to the doctrine of the Church of England, “and especially contrary to the articles of the Church, ‘ which articles, in all cases of doubtful interpretation, do “ oblige us to go to the Scriptures—if that is refused me, “ T throw the burden of the refusal on the court. I shall *“ leave the court and carry my defence elsewhere.” What is the answer which, after an adjournment, your lord- ship returned to that vehement and peremptory demand ? f “J will tell you in substance what I intended to say, and “‘ what I mean now to say, and you will see what latitude * his Grace would allow you, and within what limits you “‘ must confine yourself.” (I abridge slightly, leaving out one or two passages.) “ The charge against Archdeacon * Denison being that he has preached sermons contrary to “ the articles, it is not competent to his counsel to attempt “ to prove, by a reference to Scripture, that such passages n * The defence of the Archdeacon (Denison) of Taunton, p. 266. 710... 267. AUTHORITIES AGAINST THE PRACTICE. 9 ‘are consonant with Scripture. We cannot permit this “ for two reasons—first, because the issue in the cause is “ not whether the sermons are conformable to Scripture, “ but to the Thirty-nine Articles, which, by the law of “the land, must be taken to be the true expression of “ Scripture; secondly, because we can allow no attempt “to prove that the sermons are conformable to Scrip- “ture independently of the articles, which would almost *‘ necessarily involve the trial of the question whether the “ articles are conformable to Scripture, a question which * the law forbids us to try. That the question being, What “is the meaning and plain construction cf the article, it is * competent, for the purpose of ascertaining such construc- * tion, to refer, in case of doubt, to Scripture, or the For- “ mularies, or other authorities, to show what meaning the words will bear, to show that any given meaning intended “ to be attached to the words of the article is supported by “ Scripture reference, by Scripture applying to and ex- “‘ planatory of the words in the article;” that is to say, if a particular expression occurs in the article which is a Scriptural expression, you may explain the meaning of that by showing what are the passages of the Scriptures in which it was used; but you are not to convert a court of law into a court of theology, and, by direct reference to the Bible, to argue, not the legality, but the truth of the doctrines at issue. I may be told that the principle which I have read from the case of the Archdeacon of Taunton was a proceeding under the Act of Elizabeth, which forbids explicitly the impugning of the Thirty-nine Articles, and they will say the present proceedings are under the general law of the church; and under the general law of the church, we are entitled to a latitude which, in proceedings under the Act of Elizabeth, we should not be entitled to. 10 DEFENCE OF DR. WILLIAMS. There are two answers to that. One is that if you admit that, you overthrow the fundamental principle that this is a court of law, not a court of theology — you admit arguments going to the truth of the doctrines. Another independent answer is, that if ever there was a case which could be said to be determined under the general law of the Church, and not under any particular statute, it was the Gorham case. The court in that case complained in strong terms of the form in which the case came before them. It was said, Here are no plead- ings, no allegations of heresy on the one side, no allegations of orthodoxy on the other. A book written by Mr. Gorham*is thrown at our heads, and we are to decide whether or no that book contains heresy on a particular point. In the argument, the counsel on both sides exhausted all the resources of learning in quoting, first to Sir Herbert Jenner, and afterwards to the Committee of the Privy Council, not only the authorities of the Church of England, not only the authorities of the Church of Rome, but authorities from almost all the fathers— in fact, they quoted everything which ever was written on the subject, until human nature could go no farther. Therefore, if ever there was a case which was decided on general principles, it was the Gorham case. Naturally, when the court had this vast mass of learning—Greek, Hebrew, and Latin, and I know not what else—thrown at their heads, the first course which they took was to decide what was law and what was not; and a more im-~ portant, a more salutary course was never taken by a court of justice. The result of their inquiry on the subject was embodied in the paragraphs which I just now read. They said in substance, this may be all very well, but what we have to decide by is the Articles and Formularies of the Church CONSEQUENCES OF PROPOSED FORM OF PLEADING. 11 of England. We are not to go into all this matter; we are not to have the Bible quoted to us, (for it is said in this defence of the Archdeacon of Taunton, that a vain attempt was made to quote the Bible in the Gorham case,) but we are to decide by the plain grammatical meaning of the Prayer-book and Formularies. Your lordship’s language in Burder v. Heath is precisely to the same effect. Again and again, in your judgment upon that case, you say, “ What I have to decide upon is the plain grammatical “meaning of the Articles and the Prayer-book.” Again and again, in that case, you recognize the principle of open questions, and, therefore, I say that that is the fundamental principle of the court, and that it is not to be evaded by forms of pleading and procedure. Pleading is in every instance the creature of the court, and no court will allow its own processes to be made the means of defeating its fundamental principles. Is your lordship to say that one thing is orthodox under the statute and another thing is orthodox under the general law? The proposition is absurd. It seems to me to follow so clearly from the principle laid down in the Gorham case, that I cannot make it clearer, that the Articles, the Formularies, and the Rubrics are the only authorities, in matters of faith, to which the clergy of the Church of England are bound, and that, in the Formu- laries and the Rubrics, greater distinctness and precision are required in the enunciation of doctrine than is required in the Articles. Having said thus much with regard to the legality of the course taken, let me point out what would be its practical consequences if permitted. Yesterday afternoon, when Dr. Deane, in justice to his client, was arguing various biblical questions, your lordship said, and I rejoiced to hear it, “Ido not sit here to argue all these questions of 12 DEFENCE OF DR. WILLIAMS. divinity, and I will not adjudicate upon them.” That I am sure I heard with the greatest satisfaction, but, permit me to say, your lordship will have no choice on the subject, if the indictment is to stand as it is now drawn. If you are to admit all these texts of Scripture by these circuitous means, to be quoted against Dr. Williams, Dr. Williams must have the right of saying what they mean, and the other side must have the right of reply, and the end will be that your lordship will have to put a judicial construction upon every passage of the Bible which is read in the course of the year. Let us follow out this principle a little, for the conse- quences are so monstrous, so grotesque, so inconceivably absurd, that I am afraid of throwing an air of ridicule over the case by mentioning them. Recollect what is read in church. The whole Bible is read in church with certain exceptions; the whole of the Apocrypha with certain exceptions; and upon every one of these chapters your lordship may be called upon to adjudicate and to put a judicial construction, if this indictment is to be admitted in this shape. Ido not wish to abuse ridicule, but some things are so ridiculous that they must be exposed. Suppose I were to ask your lordship to put a judicial construction on Bel and the Dragon. I should have a perfect right to do so according to the way in which this indictment is drawn., Suppose I were to make some remarks about balls of pitch, and to say it did or did not burn in a certain manner, and thereupon I were to be indicted by some one who charged that I did “ advisedly maintain and affirm that pitch and resin would not burn; ” and who alleged that this position is contrary to the teaching of the church as contained in the proper lesson for the 23rd November, to wit, Bel and the Dragon. How, if this indictment is admitted, can you escape from that absurdity ? CONSEQUENCES OF PROPOSED FORM OF PLEADING. 13 Let me refer to some other instances. You are asked to put a judicial construction on the Book of Revelation. It so happens that on Bartholomew’s eve, the day before the anniversary of the massacre of St. Bartholomew, the proper lesson is the 8th Daniel, which contains the vision of the little horn. Suppose some one were to ask your lordship to put a judicial construction on that. How, if you admit these articles, could you refuse? Suppose you were asked to say whether any allusion was meant to the Romish Church, by the selection of that lesson for that day, just at the time when the recollection of the massacre was fresh in the memory of the Reformers. If you are ever asked to do that, solventur risu tabule. Still if you admit one passage you cannot reject another. If you are to put a construction on the 5th of Revelations, why not put a construction on the 8th of Daniel? But to go still a little farther. I have hitherto taken ludicrous illustra- tions, but I am now going to take an illustration, the seriousness of which I think would appal any one. On Septuagesima Sunday, the first lesson is the first chapter of Genesis. I shall have occasion to show your lordship hereafter what is the view which Dr. Whewell and Archbishop Sumner have expressed on the construction of that chapter. Suppose any fanatic were to choose to object to that, and were to say, My lord, Dr. Whewell says, or uses language which implies, that the six days do not mean six days; is that right or wrong? How would your lordship be able to refuse to adjudicate upon that? If that is to be the law, the rhetor Lugdunensem dicturus ad aram would be an object of envy to the clergy of the Church of England, for no man could write a single sermon on any subject whatever, on any text which is ever read in church, without being liable to deprivation, if your lordship should hold afterwards that the meaning of the church in 14 DEFENCE OF DR. WILLIAMS. ordering that text to be read on a particular day, was something different to the meaning which he had put upon it in his sermon. The result would simply be this, that heresy and orthodoxy would lie down in one grave, that the clergy would be able to publish nothing at all, and to preach nothing but homilies. It is almost like slaying the slain to pursue this subject farther; but there is another objection to it which, if the other two did not exist, would be perfectly conclusive. The proceedings in this case prove this kind of pleading to be, in the strict sense of the word, preposterous; that is to say, it puts the conclusion before the premiss. The question here is, what is the position of the Bible in the teaching of the church? For the Bible of itself, as I need not say, has no authority in this court, except that which the law gives it. How can you possibly decide this question out of the Bible? Ina passage to which I shall have to refer again—a controversy between Chillingworth and his epponent—Chillingworth’s opponent asks this question: ‘“ How are you to decide questions about Scrip- “ ture?” * Chillingworth says: “ Your negative conclusion, “ therefore, that these questions touching Scripture are not “ decideable by Scripture, you needed not have cited any “ authorities, nor urged any reason to prove it, it is evident “of itself, and I grant it without more ado.” ‘That, I apprehend, is a perfectly conclusive objection to this mode of proceeding. One of the questions you have to decide here to-day is, whether or no it is heretical for a clergyman of the Church of England to say that the Book of Hebrews was not written by Saint Paul: one of the authorities to which you are referred, not on this subject, but on a collateral subject, is the Book of Hebrews itself. Which question are you to decide first? According to this mode * Chillingworth, p. 87. CONSEQUENCES OF PROPOSED FORM OF PLEADING. 15 of pleading, you must on the seventh count go into the whole question of the authorship of the Book of Hebrews, in order to ascertain its meaning; for, if it was written by St. Paul, then his style and his language would mean one thing; if, on the other hand, it was written by Apollos, then the style and the same expressions might mean some- thing different. When you got to the tenth count, you would have to consider whether your speculations on the seventh count had been lawful; for that count charges that it is heresy to deny that St. Paul wrote that epistle. Observe what a sea of speculation you are launched upon; the question being how far is the Bible inspired ? how far is the Bible authentic? how far is it permitted to criticise the Bible? You are referred to the Bible itself to deter- mine that. It is absurd on the face of it. Of course the first question I should ask upon these pleadings would be this: You say that such and such a thing is taught by the Epistle to the Hebrews. Suppose it is: what then? Are we to infer that it is of necessity true? And that involves —I do not say the point in issue, because I shall show Dr. Williams does not go so far—but it involves a very important point in issue in this case. The whole authority of the Bible in this court is derived from the law; and there-~ fore you must’ decide what authority the law gives to the Bible before you can quote the Bible itself as authority. I have dealt with this point at length because if your lordship should decide against us, if you should admit the articles thus framed, you will not be able to stop short of this conclusion: that, with the assistance of the Committee of Council, you will have to compile an authoritative com- mentary on every part of the Bible and Apocrypha which is read in church, and in that way the open questions which the Gorham case admits to exist will be utterly taken away. ‘There is not a question of science, there is not a 16 DEFENCE OF DR. WILLIAMS. question of history, there is not a question of morals, there is hardly a question of literature, upon which you may not be called upon to decide, if you are to admit an indictment framed in this manner. The absurdity of the inference is such that I need not insist upon it. I will, however, add one word more. It may be said, * But it will do no harm.” No, in a certain way it would not. I do not suppose that your lordship would, in fact, be called upon to adjudicate upon all these things, but I will tell you what you would be called upon to do; whenever any man with .a little more originality, with a little more learning, with a little more confidence than usual, put forward a view which happened to startle any ignorant person, then this weapon of assault would be drawn from the armoury, and your lordship would be asked to say, this is opposed to such and such a text of the Bible. The practical use likely to be made of a mode of proceeding is not the test of its legality. The true test is to be found in its logical consequences, and those which I have assigned in this case appear to me to constitute a complete reductio ad absurdum. I now pass from the pleadings to the merits of the case. The charges against Dr. Williams are nine in number, and they fall into two classes. Five relate to his doctrines about the Bible. Four to his doctrines on the Atonement, Baptism, the Incarnation, and Justification by Faith. The five which form the first class are contained in the seventh, eighth, ninth, and tenth articles, and I will read them to your lordship. Count 7 charges a denial that Scripture is the Word of God, containing a special revelation of His truth, and of His dealings with mankind, and that it is the rule of our faith. Count 8 charges a denial of the existence of any element PLAN OF DEFENCE. 1? of divinely inspired prediction or prognostication in pro- phecy. Count 9 charges a denial that Jonah and Daniel wrote the books known by their names, and also a denial that those books are canonical. Count 10 charges a denial of the canonicity of the Epistle to the Hebrews, the Second Epistle of St. Peter, and the Revelation. Count 11 charges an affirmation that the statements of Holy Scripture as to historical facts may read in a figurative and non-natural sense. Count 17 charges amongst other things a design to inculcate a disbelief in the divine inspiration and authority of the Holy Scriptures, and to reduce them to the level of a mere human composition, such as the writings of Luther and of Milton. Those being the charges relating to the Scriptures, I do not think it is possible to discuss them in a satisfactory manner if they are discussed separately, one by one. Such a course would be consistent neither with the interests nor with the wishes of Dr. Williams. For, my lord, standing here to represent a learned man, whom I have the honour of calling my friend, I am as anxious that he should leave this court with honour, as that he should leave it with suc- cess; I am here to speak his pwn sentiments when I say that he would rather lose his living as an honest man than retain it by sneaking ont of his opinions like a knave and a liar. My lord, I speak thus strongly because I feel from the course which public discussion has*taken, that his ortho- doxy is not the only point in question—something higher than correctness of opinion is at stake, the character of an honest man and an English gentleman. Speaking upon these terms I am not going to take this sentence, and that sentence, and to say the articles of 2 18 DEFENCE OF DR. WILLIAMS. religion do not forbid this, and they do not forbid that. There is no law against us here, and there is no law against us there. I will take the risk, and I am sure my client would wish me to take the risk, of taking a bold course. I say, on his part, I will own I hold unfamiliar opinions. I have said things which may startle those who are ignorant of the history of the church and the writing of our greatest divines. I have said so because I had a right to say so. ~I have said so in the exercise of a right which is secured to me by the Church of England, which was left to me designedly by the Church of England, and which I must exercise so long as I am faithful to my solemn ordination vow: “To be diligent “in such studies as help to the knowledge of the Holy Scriptures.” That is the ground upon which I mean to put this case. I mean to speak plainly and boldly in the matter; I mean to give your lordship a distinct account of the doctrine of the Church of England on the subject of.the Bible; I mean to show you what the church does.say, and what the church does not say ; I will show you why the church did not say what the prosecution must contend it ought to have said; and I mean in that way to establish, that the church designedly, intentionally, and, as I think, wisely (possibly without a full appreciation of all the consequences which such a course might ultimately involve) left open these very questions which Dr. Williams is now indicted as a heretic for discussing. In order to follow out this course—I must apologize to your lordship, I feel, for the warmth with which I speak; but this is a cause which justifies some warmth—I say in order to follow out this course, I must enter at length into the whole subject; I must show your lordship what the position of the Scriptures in the church is, and (throw- DIVINE AUTHORITY OF SCRIPTURE NOT DENIED. 19 ing aside all verbiage upon the matter; coming to the plain gist and pinch of the case at once) I must show what is the doctrine of inspiration according to the teaching of the Church of England. The prosecution is in fact a challenge to that discussion; from that discussion I will not shrink. In order to explain fully my difficulty in the matter I must begin with this solemn protest on the part of my client ; that the divine authority of the Holy Scriptures is not an issue in this cause; that it never was for one instant impugned by him; that he professes to hold it in the strongest sense; that if the Bible were reduced to a mere human composition; if the Bible were dissevered from the inspiration of the Holy Ghost ; every word which is written, every word which is preached, all that is contained, in the writings to which I shall have to call your lordship’s attention, becomes an empty sound—a sounding brass and a tinkling cymbal. With that solemn declaration I proceed to discuss this awful subject, yet let me say one word more. My lord, a man who stands where I do, stands indeed under a tremendous responsibility. I have to use language, I have to advance arguments which are liable to the gravest misconstruction. I have to incur the risk of being held up as a man who would destroy or disparage that book which ‘from his earliest infancy he has been taught to revere as the choicest gift of God to man, as the guide of his conduct here; the foundation of his hopes hereafter. My lord, I will not, however, shrink from that danger ; I will say what I mean; and I most earnestly beg your lordship not to think, if I use familiar words, if I speak in the plainest terms our mother tongue, the mother tongue of honesty and plain dealing, can afford, I am Pee 20 DEFENCE OF DR. WILLIAMS. speaking with any irreverence towards that most holy volume. I shall now proceed to discuss the subject. Two views are possible with respect to the Bible. All Christians believe that God has made a revelation to man, which revelation consists in part of precepts to be obeyed, in part of doctrines to be believed. All Protestants believe that that revelation is contained in the Bible, to the exclu- sion of tradition. And here a difference begins ; for whilst some Protestants believe that the Bible contains the reve- lation, others believe it constitutes the revelation. (I ad- visedly call your lordship’s attention to that distinction, for I think you will find it applies to every part of this case, and that it is a vital and decisive one.) I say some con- sider that the Bible contains the Christian religion; that the Christian religion—the aggregate of the principles, the precepts, and the doctrines revealed by God to man—is the proper object of belief, and that to it, and to it alone, divine authority is to be ascribed; whilst others believe that the Bible itself constitutes Christianity: that being itself the revelation from God to man, every word it contains is of equal and absolute authority. Having pointed out that vital distinction, I proceed to a further remark, hardly less important to the full under- standing of the case I have to set up. Either of these opinions—the opinion that the Bible contains Christianity — the opinion that the Bible constitutes Christianity—is con- sistent with the belief that the Bible is, in point of fact, absolutely true throughout. Either, I say, is consistent with that belief: for, first, those who believe that the Bible contains Christianity, may believe that it pleased Almighty God to enclose that divine essence in a vase as perfect as the essence itself; and that as he saw fit to communicate to mankind those truths which were essential to their happiness here and hereafter, so he also saw fit POSSIBLE VIEWS AS TO NATURE OF-THE BIBLE. 21 to do it through a channel as pure—as free from all human corruption as the truths which emanated from himself. But although that is so, those who believe that the Bible contains Christianity are not compelled to hold this opinion. It is perfectly consistent with their fundamental principle, that as children learn religion and virtue from imperfect parents, and as subjects learn justice from laws imperfect in themselves, and administered by imperfect judges, so it may have pleased God that the vehicle of his revelation to man should not be absolutely pure, and free from the stains and inaccuracies which appear to be necessary to everything else which is in any way mixed up with human nature. Those, onthe other hand, who believe that the Bible constitutes Christianity, that the Bible itself is the revela- tion of God to man, the ultimate and final object of belief, cannot take that course. They can admit no imperfection; they must maintain that every word, every letter, every precept, every fact, capital or circumstantial, stands on the same foundation, and is absolutely and entirely true; for what higher warrant can mortal man have of the truth of any proposition whatever, than the fact that that proposi- tion is asserted by Almighty God? In order to illustrate this doctrine—I mean the doctrine that the Bible itself is the revelation from God to man, I will read—and I am sure I cannot do the doctrine any injus- tice in doing so—I will read an extract from Dr. Chalmers, who maintains that opinion in the strongest terms. I read from Chalmers’s works, vol. iv. pp. 375 to 380; and I read only one sentence from each page, because they are the strongest sentences I can find, and unquestionably, I think, represent his views fairly. “Such being our views, it is * the unavoidable consequence of them that we should hold 22 DEFENCE OF DR. WILLIAMS. “ the Bible for all the purposes of a revelation to be perfect in its language, as well as perfect in its doctrine.” At p. 376: “We believe that in the composition of * that record, men not only thought as they were inspired, * but spoke as they were moved by Holy Ghost.” At p. 377: ©The Bible is wholly the product of divine “ authorship, God being the author of the ordinary as well “ as of the miraculous.” At p. 378: (This ‘is a very important passage :) “ Every “ word, whether suggested to the mind of the writer “ miraculously or not, was inspired by God (or according “to the Greek, was breathed into him by God); not one ‘word could be altered, but for the worse, whether by ‘“‘ instruments or without them; the whole authorship both ‘“‘ in substance and expression is God’s.” That is the view of Dr. Chalmers. Now, my lord, suppose that a set of persons holding the belief that the Bible contained Christianity, or rather, had to draw up articles of faith, and suppose that most of them held as a pious opinion, that as matter of fact the Bible was infallible throughout; it might naturally happen that the result of their deliberations would be to state the fundamental point (that the Bible contained Christianity) upon which they all agreed, and to leave the other point open, as being a matter of minor im- portance. But if persons commissioned to draw up such a confession of faith, were of the opmion propounded by Dr. Chalmers, and meant to express such an opinion, I ~ cannot conceive it possible that they would have left it to rest upon inference and construction; upon an indirect allusion here, a doubtful reference there, a vague expres- sion in an occasional service, or the selection of a lesson, or anepistle. If, as people have sometimes thought, the Bible is the religion of Protestants, if it be the belief of the Church SIXTH ARTICLE OF RELIGION. 2 @2 that every word of the Bible is absolutely true, why do we not find in those confessions of faith which are the stan- dards of its doctrines, as simple and emphatic a declaration of the fact, as we do of doctrines of very inferior import- ance, and as amongst Mahometans we find in the assertion “there is no God but God, and Mahomet is his prophet?” Isum up what I have said in very few words. All Christians believe in a revelation from God to man; all Protestants believe that the Bible contains that revelation ; the only question that can arise upon it between Protestants is, whether the whole of its contents constitute that revela- tion, or whether it contains the revelation and does not constitute it, so that it may contain other things besides. That, my lord, being a distinction which arises from the very nature of the case, a distinction which arises inde- pendently of any authority which could be called to esta- blish it, let me now say this which I think I have a right to say, that one or the other of these opinions must be held by the Protestant Church of England, for no third opinion on the subject can even be imagined. I proceed then to examine the authorities on the subject. They are contained in the sixth and seventh articles of religion, and in addition to that the prosecutors refer to the twentieth article in further support of their views. My lord, those articles have not yet been read, and I will proceed to read them. Axticte VI. “ Of the sufficiency of Holy Scripture for * salvation. Holy Scripture containeth all things neces- “sary to salvation; so that whatsoever is not read “ therein, nor may be proved thereby, is not to be required “of any man, that it should be believed as an article ‘of the faith, or be thought requisite or necessary to “salvation. In the name of the Holy Scripture we do ‘¢ understand these canonical books of the Old and New Tes- cal 24 DEFENCE OF DR. WILLIAMS. * tament, of whose authority was never any doubt in the “ church.” * Of the names and number of the canonical books,” Then follows a list in which occurs this remarkable ex- pression: ‘‘ Four prophets the greater, and twelve prophets ** the less.” (I mention that for a purpose I will presently advert to.) “And the other books (as Hierome saith) *“‘ the church doth read for example of life and instruction “ of manners; but yet doth it not apply them to establish *‘ any doctrine: such are these following.” Then is given a list of these “other” books, or those which are the correlatives of canonical, 7. e. the apocryphal books. \ Last comes this expression: “ All the books of the New Testa- “ ment, as they are commonly received, we do receive, “* and account them canonical.” . Artictze VII. is “ Of the Old Testament. The Old * Testament is not contrary to the New, for both in the * Old and New Testament everlasting life is offered to “mankind by Christ, who is the only Mediator between “ God and man, being both God and man; wherefore “‘ they are not to be heard, which feign that the old fathers *“ did look only for transitory promises. Although the law * oiven from God by Moses, as touching ceremonies and “ rites, do not bind Christian men, nor the civil precepts * thereof ought of necessity to be received in any com- “ monwealth, yet, notwithstanding, no Christian man what- “ soever is free from the obedience of the commandments *¢ which are called ‘ moral.’” Those are the two standard authorities of the Church of England. What do they settle? and what do they leave open? It is, as I have already shown your lordship, by reference to the Gorham case, a characteristic of the Church of England to leave many questions open. Upon those open questions, the clergy of the church have by law QUESTIONS LEFT OPEN BY THE ARTICLES. 25 a right to that unfettered liberty of opinion which belongs to them as subjects of the Queen of England. I know that there is a popular notion, which has been urged upon your lordship, and upon others who may have to adjudi- cate in the last resort on this case, by writers of the greatest influence—there is, I say, a vague popular notion that in this cause you are to stand, not by the letter of the law, but by something which they call the “ equity of the law.” Criminal equity! That you are to enforce, not what the law says, but what the congregation thinks, and that if Dr. Williams be convicted of holding opinions which would be startling to an ordinary father of a family, he is at once to be deprived of the living of Broad Chalke. My lord, I mention that notion only to hold it up to the contempt which its lawless insolence deserves. What judge would ever listen to such a suggestion in the most trumpery civil action? ‘To urge you not to adopt it as against an accused man, in a criminal case, which involves not only his cha- racter but his means of subsistence, would be something very like an insult. I go on with the question with which I started, viz. What do the articles settle and what do they leave open? First, the sixth article settles this—that Holy Scripture contains all things necessary to salvation. That clearly refers, as I shall show your lordship immediately, to the Roman Catholic view of tradition. “ Holy Scripture” (2. e. the Bible) “containeth all things necessary ‘to salvation, “so that whatsoever is not read therein, nor may be *‘ proved thereby, is not to be required of any man that * it should be believed as an article of the faith, or be * thought requisite or necessary to salvation.” That is, belief is not to be required in doctrines which cannot be proved out.of the Bible, but which depend upon tradition only. It goes on to say—“In the name of the Holy 26 DEFENCE OF DR. WILLIAMS. “ Scripture we do understand those canonical books of “the Old and New Testament, of whose authority was “ never any doubt in the church.” What does that mean? I submit it clearly means this: from the earliest times, and certainly from the time of Ezra, if not before, there was in the Christian Church, and before that in the Jewish Church, a collection of sacred books, to which authority in some form and in some shape—a most indefinite form and shape, as I shall have occasion to show your lordship hereafter, but—to which authority in some form was ascribed. Some of these books had been doubted, and some had not. In many popular works, in Hey’s Lectures, for instance, your lordship will find an account how the Jews kept part of their books in one place, viz. in the sacred chest, which was kept in the Temple, and others elsewhere, according to two Greek words, “away from the chest;” the one class were received, or canonical, books, the others were amd tie Kovgne or apocryphal books, so that there were two classes of books—those which were recognized as autho- ritative, which were used for the purposes of worship, and those which were apocryphal, and not so used; and accordingly the Church of England says, when it speaks of Scripture: “ What we mean by the word Scripture is those books which are canonical,” 7. e. those books which never were doubted; “ we confine ourselves, in defining “the word Scripture, to the canonical books, as contra- “ distinguished from the apocryphal books.” Then there comes a list of the canonical books. But there is this remarkable expression: “ Of whose authority there never was any doubt in the church.” Not a word as to the source of the authority; not a word as to the extent of the authority ; not a word as to the nature of the autho- rity; but simply the words which I have read. Their POSITION ASSIGNED TO THE OLD TESTAMENT. 27 obvious purport is to denote what books are meant, without defining the degree of authority which belongs to them. There are some books of whose authority there never was any doubt in the church, and those are in- cluded; there are other books whose authority has been doubted, those are excluded. What the authority might have been—how far it extended—upon what it was based, the article does not determine; nor is there one single word about it to be found in any of the formularies ot our church. Then comes a list of the uncanonical books ; and then come the remarks about the Old Testament—remarks which show, I think, that a lower degree of authority is attached to the books of the Old than to those of the New Testament. “Although the Law given from God by “* Moses as touching ceremonies and rites do not bind ** Christian men, nor the civil precepts thereof ought ot “necessity to be received in any commonwealth; yet, * notwithstanding, no Christian man whatsoever is free “from the obedience of the commandments which are ** called moral.” There can be little doubt that this meant to leave open the question, whether the Fourth Commandment was binding or not as a “commandment called moral,” the Fourth Commandment being one that is called “ cere- monial;” and in order not to specify whether or not they meant to include the Fourth Commandment, they used that expression of “the commandments called moral.” In the Catechism there is a very striking illustration of this. The answer to the question, “ What is my duty towards God?” goes through particularly the Christian duties, and it does not mention the duty of observing the Sunday. It says, “to serve him truly all the days of my life;” not more particularly on the seventh day, but 28 DEFENCE OF DR. WILLIAMS. all the days of my life;” so that the question whether or no the Fourth Commandment be binding upon Christians, I conceive (it is not very material to my argument), is left open by this article. A remarkable confirmation of this account is that Chillingworth for a long time scrupled to take orders on the ground that he did not believe that the Fourth Commandment was binding, and he thought the article obliged him to say it was; but his scruples were afterwards overcome—he did subscribe the articles, but he appears to have retained the belief that the Fourth Com- mandment was not binding. The object of this is to show your lordship that this seventh article, so far as it expresses what the authority for the Old Testament is, ascribes to it rather an inferior position as compared with the New Testament. The article is entirely negative, “the Old Testament is not contrary to the New.” It does not say, “The Old Testament and the New are both on the same footing,” but the Old Testament is not contrary to the New, 7. e is not opposed to it. I shall have occasion to call your lordship’s attention to this most advised reserve as to the authority of the books of the Old Testament immediately ; because when the proper time comes, I shall show what was the opinion of the Calvinistic divines upon this subject, and how far they considered the sixth and seventh articles sufficient for their purpose. In order to show your lordship what is left open by these articles, I will refer to two authorities of great importance. I will refer to the authority of Dr. Chalmers and the authority of Bishop Marsh. I use these autho- rities not because either the one or the other agrees with Dr. Williams, but in order to show what is the natural division of the subject, and that these eminent divines, having to consider the question of the Bible in general, and having to divide the subject, divided it in the same DISTRIBUTION OF THE SUBJECT. 29 manner, although they took very different views on the subject of inspiration. Dr. Chalmers, speaking of the books of the Jewish and Christian revelation, and the degree of authority which belongs to them, divided it thus :*—Cuap. I. treats of the canon of Scripture, and more especially that of the Old Testament. Cuarv. IL, of the inspiration of the Old and New Testament. Cuap. III., of the internal evidence of that inspiration. Cuap. IV., of the supreme authority of revelation. So that he divides the subject thus :—there is, 1, the canon; 2, the inspiration; 3, the evidence of that inspiration; and, 4, the authority of revelation—z. e. the degree of authority which belongs to it. Next take Bishop Marsh. Bishop Marsh was Margaret Professor of Divinity at Cambridge, and the lectures of which I take the headings were lectures delivered by him at Cambridge in that capacity. He enters into an elabo- rate discussion as to the heads under which the subject falls, and he finally divides it thus :— 1. The criticism of the Bible. 2. Revelation of the Bible. 3. The authenticity and credibility of the Bible. 4. The divine authority of the Bible, or the evidences for the divine origin of the religions recorded in it. I invite special attention to that. “The Divine autho- “rity of the Bible, or” (observe the alternative) “the * evidences for the Divine origin of the religions recorded “in it;” that is to say, he considered the Divine authority of the Bible to consist in the fact that it is the vehicle of a revelation, and that that fact gave it its authority. 5. The inspiration of the Bible. 6. The doctrines of the Bible. * Chalmers’s Works Vol. IV. On the Evidence of Christianity : book iv. 30 DEFENCE OF DR. WILLIAMS. Bishop Marsh thus recognizes the distinction between criticism, interpretation, inspiration, and authority, That is to say, he recognizes the fact that the question of the canon, ic. what is Scripture, what is the schedule, so to speak, which contains the Books of Scripture, was one, and that the question of inspiration was another. In further illustration of that I will read another passage from Dr. Chalmers :—“ The question with respect to the canon of Scripture” (your lordship asked my friend yesterday what he meant by “canonical;” I reply, “I mean by canonical what Dr. Chalmers means in this passage )— Dean of the Arches: You are citing from Dr. Chalmers ? Mr. Stephen: Yes; I am going to read Dr. Chalmers’s account of what he means by “canonical,” and I say I adopt that as my view of “canonical:”—*The question “‘ which respects the canon of Scripture is distinct from that * which respects the inspiration of it.” Your lordship will remember that this is the view of “ canonicity” taken by a man who holds the doctrine of inspiration in the highest form in. which it is possible to hold it)—“