Imágenes de página
PDF
ePub

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 figurative 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, Original 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 medieval 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 † 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. † Page xii., second paragraph.

passages in the 13th count. That the said passages are sarcasms, directed against views of Baptism and the Atonement, maintained by the medieval 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. xxxii., xxxiii.

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 disbelief 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 suggested.

5. That it is illegal to assume them at all.

DEFENCE OF DR. WILLIAMS.

PART I.

"

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.-COMPARISON OF THE THIRTYNINE ARTICLES WITH THE CREED OF PIUS IV. AND THE WESTMINSTER CONFESSION. THE DIFFERENCE EXPLAINED FROM THE WRITINGS OF DIVINES OF THE SEVENTEENTH CENTURY.

(Delivered in the COURT OF ARCHES, Dec. 21st, 1861.)

MAY IT PLEASE YOUR LORDSHIP,

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 numerous 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.

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 sometimes 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? questions at issue, I proceed to address 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

Such being the myself without

« AnteriorContinuar »