The Express.
London, England, 1861-03-15 00:00:00

ISBILTS AIM RILVITWa.

The Bishop of Oxman said it appeared to him to be the
duty of their lordships oomprldser the Upper }louse of Con-
vocation to acquielce in the prayer of the petition, and be
should move a resolution to that effect.

The Bishop of CHICHESTER seconded the motion.
The Bishop of LOSDOS dimwitted from the course pro-
posed. Ile believed that there were two courses
which it would be wise to adopt with regard
to this dangerous volume. One of them was by a quiet
declaration of unmistakeable authority to express an opinion
that the book was a dangerous one. That course had been
taken in a document which although it might have come
out in =informal maaser, liad been published to the world,
and had had, ho believed, peat weight with the thinking
public of this great country. That was one way in which he
thought it was wise to duel with this dangerous volume, to
say that it was dangerous, and having said so, to be done
with it. The other oourse must he a work of time, namely,
as answer to the dangerous statements which the book con-
tained. He quite agreed with the Bishop of Oxford that
the) should sot answer such statements in such a way as
to let it be 'apposed that it was an open question whether
the great fundamental doctrines of ota faith might or might
not be maintained by the clergy of the church of England,
but he saw no danger in treating the subject argumenta-
tively, What was there to influence the thinking
pub lk of this nation, except • careful examination
of those ewers, pointing out how ardent minds had
bees misled by the pursuit of truth, so as to fall into
grievous error—pointing out what was the truth they bad
been looking for, and which they had missed, and bringing to
bear on the argument the weight of the very great men who
had written upon the subject. He was not the least afraid
that the church of England would be compromised by any
argument based an this subject ; on the eontrary, he believed
it wasthe only way in which truth would at last prevail.
The Bishop of Sr. DAVID'S did not see that the come
which the Bishop of Oxford proposed would supersede argu-
ment on the merits of the book. The question had come
from many quarters—what is the church about to do? and
be thought they should be prepared to give an answer.
He thought it was militia' to the very being of the church
that it should have an organ by which it should express its
opinions. If that organ were not stifled by material force
it should declare what the mind of the church was upon that
point.
The Bishop of LLANDA7I thought that, as the petition
had been sent up, their lordship would be taking upon
themselves the most serious respeuaibility, and deserting
the plain line of their duty, if they neglected to act upon it.
Welber the Bishop of Bath and Wells, the Bishop of
Gloucester and Bristol, nor the Bishop of Norwich, could
anent to the motion ; which, on the other band, was sup-
ported by the Bishop of Salisbury and the Bishop of Bangor.
The Archbishop Of CANTERBURY psi the motion, when
there appeared—
For (B)—the Bishop of Winchester, St. David's, Oxford,
Heger, Salisbury, Uandaff, St. Amaph, Chicle/der.
.Against (4)—the Bishop; of London, Bath and Wells,
Gloucester and Bristol, Norwich.
His Grace the ARCHIIIISIIOP, who did not vote either way,
declared the Bishop al Oxford's malice carried.
After the ttsamedien of some further busker their lord-
ships adjourDed.