The Express.
London, England, 1861-03-01 00:00:00

CONVOCATION OP THE PROVINCE OF

CANTERBURY.

Yesterday both houses assembled at Westminster
for the despatch of badness.
The Archbishop of CANTERBURY presided in the Upper
House, and there were present the Bishops of London, St.
Amish, Lleadaff, Gloomier and Bristol, Salisbury, Nor-
wich, Lincoln, Oxford, and St. Devitt's.
A lengthened dissuasion took place on "Essays sod
Reviews," introduced by the Bishop of Oxford, who pre.
minted a petition, praying the bishops not to separate with.
out taking legal and judicial notice of the book.
'The Bishop of SALISBURY referred to his position in
having three of the ems sod reviewers in his diocese,
and said he bad •pplied for legal advice how to deal with
them, but had not yet received it.
The Bishop of LONDON presented a petition to the same
effect, signed by the Hon. Colin Lindsay on behalf of the
English Church Union. He was not in the position of the
Bishop of Salisbury, of having any of the clergy who had
written the " Essays and Reviews" in his dioone, but he
was in the position of being the intimate personal friend of
two of those clergymen whose names appeared in the volume.
He would with tai say with regard to both of thenithat from
the personal friendship and the intercourse he had had with
them during the last 20 years, he entertained for them the
very liveliest regard, and in proportion as that regard awl
affection were strong the more he desired that an opportn.
nity should he afforded to him of doing what he trusted
they would do, which was to make • declaration which
would be satisfactory to the church and to the country that
they were not respire/able for every word that occurred in
that unfortunate volume. He rejoiced that through cirmun.
stances over which they bad no control, it would be impose
Bible for the archbishops and bishops generally to meet for
some time to come to consider this subject, because he most
anxiously desired that that time should be employed by the
gentlemen who had taken part in con this
book in endeavouring to vindicate themes yes ore
the country in the only way they could vindicate
themselves namely by an expression of their posi.
tive belief in the truths to which their book was not
unnaturally supposed to be antagonistic. How some of these
gentlemen would be able to do this he could not say. He
should very much doubt the possibility of their being able
to do so. 'With regard to others he thought there would
be no such difficulty, and he hoped that the time which
must elapse before the bishops met to take their book into
consideration would be used by them in endeavouring to
place themselves in a better position before the public. He
held in his hand • pamphlet which he had received that
morning—sent t 3 him he knew not by whom—printed at
Oxford. It consisted of a series of extracts from the writings
of the Rev. Benjamin Jewett, Regius Professor of Greek in
the University of Oxford (the writer of one of the essays). He
had not had time to examine the book, but it contained
these words in the preface :—" It is thought that the
following extracts will suffice to show whether the spirit
which breathes through these pages is likely to destroy
or confirm the faith of the rising generation ;
whether it is the spirit of an enemy of Christ,
or of one who is amongst His faithful followers,
whether it is a spirit at variance or in unity with the beat
teaching of the Prayer.book and the highest interests of
the church of England. It la believed, moreover, that, in-
dependently of any temporary agitation, such a collection of
paassges will (even with those who may not entirely agree
with them) be generally useful for the purposes of Christian
edifitetson, es helps to a careful and ruvereot study of the
Bible, and is testimonies to its divine excellence and antbo.
rity." Hs (the bishop), and every true member of the church
of England, would rejoice if it could be shown that this
was the true character of the extracts that could be derived
from that honk. At all events, it might be taken as an in.
dication that those who had seen most of the writer be-
lieved it to be a true statement as to his personal belief.
lie would particularly dwell upon the words of the ex;
tract, "whether it is the spirit of an enemy of Christ." lie
must say he bad been pained and ashamed of those who had
indulged in the miserable joke that those who had written
the essays were the "Septem contra Christum." It was
totally unsuited fur the occasion, and unworthy of any
serous person who wan dealing with the character's of his
brother clergy. He presumed that that was the
which wee alluded tom the quotation he had read. lets;
spoken of one of the authors and of the book placed in his
hands in reference to him. Of another lie would spelt
more confidently, and ho most sincerely trusted that the
interval which would elapse between the present time and
the further consideration of the subject weedd enable Dr.
Temple, the amiable head-master of Rugby School, to
make a public declaration of what be (the bishop)
could have no doubt was his private feeling,
namely, that he is deeply pained by many passages whi&
occur in the volume with which hisname was unfortunately
associated. As he had said before, he had known that
writer for many years in the intimacy of private friendship.
He believed that the essay in the volume which bore
his name was preached as a sermon from the pulpit of St.
Mary's, Oxford. He very much disliked the views ex.
pressed in that essay, but the essay was totally different in
his estimation from other passages which occurred in that
volume, and he could not understand by what motive the
author should be restrained from declaring publicly that he
does not approve of other things in that most unfortunate
volume. Further, it was his belief that even those of the
writers who were moat to be condemned, whose statements
were moat objectionable, would fare better in the
tion of the public if they stood entirely by themselves.
The book bad now gone through a great many editions. He
could not understand the principle upon which those gen-
tlemen acted, for it was obvious thet they were understood
to speak with the authority of copertoery, while they did
not wish it to be so understood ; he did not understand why
they did not distinctly in their preface state that they die.
approved of much they found in well other's writings. He
thought that the effect produced by this book, taken as a
whole, was far worse than could possibly be produced if
the seveu portions of which it consisted were seven separate
hook.. As a matter of propriety, lie thought it was still
more incumbent upon thous who had written the most oh:
jectionahle treatises to come forward and say that they da
not want to be associated with the more valuable mune%
than j was upon the authors of the least objectionable essay,
to say that they were not responsible for the others.
The Bishop of Sr. Leviers, referring to the Bishop of
London's remarks, said it would not be enough for any of
the essayists to say anew that they were not responsible foe
one another's writings. They must my positively that there
were things in the book which they condemned, and point
out what they were.
The Bishop of OXFORD intimated that the Bishop of Lon-
don had been influenced by his personal regent for some of
the writers in the judgment he had expressed. But truth
of doctrine was dearer than personal affection. Nothing
but an entire retractseion on the part of the writers of the
&says and Reviews would satisfy the church.
The Bishop of LONDON said he regretted the tone of
what the Bishop of Oxford had said very deeply, because
it seemed to make it very difficult for those gentlemen to do
what it was their bounden duty to do, and what he felt
confident the church would be very glad indeed that they
should do. At the same time he agreed with the Bishop
of St. David's that they should have done it before.
The Bishop of St. AMAMI Raid that no declaration of truth
could undo a declaration of error. The tempi end reviews
indicated throughout an irreligious and scoffing tone, an
though the writers wished to unsettle the belief of
everybody.
The Bidlops of Lincoln, Idandaff, Gloucester and Bristol.
and Norwich also thought that no simple declaration on
the part of the writers would be sufficient
The Archbishop of CANTERBURY Kohl that after what had
been said, and after the expression of opinion on the part of
the bishops in the document they had all signed, there
could be no question as to what were their eseliugs on the
subject. Their only doubt would be in what way they
should attempt to avert the dangerous consequences. The
bishops thought, when they took the unusual course of
giving their opinions on three swam it MS doubtful
what power they might have to same their cone
damnation. It was doubtful, also, what would be the
effect of any formal condemnation of them by Convocation.
Other !manures had beau pointed out, and which were still
under the gravest attention of the bishops. As the Upper
House of Convocation, they were not now quite at liberty
to take action upon this subject. The bishops had fixed •
day next month when they would meet the bishops of the
northern province, and on that occarion they hoped to be
able to decide in what manner the eeries could be legally
dealt with. The public would gather 'from this that the
bishops of the church of England were by no means in•
sensible to the gravity of the occasion, and that they wished
to meet it by the best means in their power.
After the transaction of some other business the hone@
adjourned.
The Lower House was occupied with the consideration of
the 29th Canon.