The Sun.
London, England, 1856-10-22 00:00:00

- • 4._ / .7.
_ , .
~ ...
.- , .
a- r 6/: /: 1(/ Viie -.).t/ / 4 /11- o,t/ r#
/ 4
(2
.. . -3
1i- t J t :t.tliat/-::/ 71: -t,,;:‘-', ::7311.;,...:;::1477 i,,,,2;4'
- ,
d/111 en t h •
~ 1,"
(411141114 i
...,\
~„„_44
'--,-4,4
„, .14-.7?-::, '..t_o;;;;')
..„. ,
, .
A,
....r.,-", ' ~, `.:3.,,,` ,
::
....
..„ . ;
r,,,....1
%
A) 110/ ~ NI. 4
4i , i. ~.....,..„.
%; ,0 \,,,,‘,,,,,,,,,,:7- ~, , ~,,,,,,,?4,,
~..,,,,,,,,. ..,, ~,, ..., , , 55L........=-
, :,
ec,
~
,„,,,,,„„.. - .......,-- ..,—..,„ ...
..a'.4
~.,
r.. 1 4,7,
/. . '
Cjk I.4iSk • ',., ~.
...
..
1/4;•." ' --
~.., ...6,
?
:',..).7 l'''''..-P.-'2lL'''..A`) 7' Cf ~r- TO :3,,,,-4-4:,(8- :1,;2:_2, 0
~,4. . ,e 41,1,' if
.z,- ',-I,—, - 54 ~,,,,,,,, ', ', ' -1,-,....'411116-4, 0f,,,
, 1L..-&/:'-i, ~,ive -4;,..-- 4 firth-- .„,(0 —.—rt : '.i.t.--
_.2-/----,-,10- •
_-.. ~,/,, 4,, ~,,, ~..,,•4.4„,„,,, 'f101T.,,,,,"4 49 A '' 41--
1 4 I I I I I I I I l'
' 11.111. a S

~ which he wished the multitude to disperse gel dually.
r !ne d preach,
or
hue
ata
disperse than the singing of a psalm would halt; afforded,
lie would be very willing to goon, and immediar
out his text. ;ely gave
ebvtionghainmjdoined in the call. be said
"It seems to me that the clergyman deservies great
credit for remaining in the pulpit and trying to ?mune
the proceedings, for, had he quitted his position, it '
would have Countenanced the alarm, and it ceitinot be
difficult to guess what would Lave been the oonse-
.quences.
~ Mr. Spurgeon gave out his text—which, however,
tghaagtehdeinweoinug2inresg, adnodutl.nampesaatimis,
former -was not aware that any ~
curve 1. When the singing was over Mr. Spurexv
hie ckacnes ende:ivoured to address the people, be t 411,
during the si4l ging of
no purpose—the noise and confusion were me great.
After an ineffectual attempt to go on Ur. Spurt eon in
timated that ho saw no use in trying to presi ,h, and!
th"atb7t:ogr;:eb: safertre
tot
Being near the preacher, and thinking thatinaatv would
: preach,
re
immediatelyema
cahi remain
at to
dhear
h hundreds
calledoled
appeared to many of us to be a roost unfortunate one,
considering what had occurred and the nature of the
place in which we were assembled—" the curse of the
Lord is in the house of the wicked." Another rush im-
mediately took place to the doors, and I took an oppor-
tunity of leaving the building by the north-east door,
where a fewer number of people were moving out, and
felt thankful to get out to the gardens, and so to the
street. The clergyman soon after felt he could not pro-
ceed, and be desisted, when the great congregation
dia-
per-sect without any further accident.
"I, therefore, think Mr.,Spurgeon acted for the heat
by attempting to preach, as there can be no doubt that
it gave confidence to many until a sufficient number wean
out to enable the others to disperse more quietly.
"I have no interest in defending Mr. Spurgeon be.-
youd the cause of truth and justice. I had never seen
him nor heard him, nor bad I seen the Surrey Music-
hall until Sunday evening.—I am, sir, your obedient
servant,
" Westminster, Oct. 21.

PRICE 4D. STAMPED SD.

so; and, although Lord Stowell defended the statute of
Eliz t both and the articles, there was nothing in his deci-
sion to show that 39 articles were enforced by that statute;
and even if there bad, it would have been niltil ad rem as
far as the case was concerned, The only question was whe-
ther a clergyman might maintain doctrines contrary to the
Articles, and it was decided that he could not. These emi-
nent authorities, indeed, believed that subscription to the
Thirty-nine Articles was binding, bat the point as to the
number of the articles was never raised before them. The
learned course] then entered at great length into the history
of the articles of the Church, with particular reference to
the introduction of the 29th article. The 42 articles of Edw.
VI., he said, did not contain this one. The statute of
Elizabeth referred to the articles agreed upon in 1562.
Archbishop Parker added the 2Jth to the other articles,
making in all 4?. They were introduced to convocation,
which reduced them to 39. Whether these articles ever
received the Royal assent might or might not be a matter
of doubt; but beyond all question the printed edition of
1552, put forth by Royal authority and purporting to con-
tain these articles, did not contain article 29. In support of
this assertion the learned counsel quoted from the works
of Drs. Lambe, Cardwell, and Bennett, and continued—
On the sth of December, 1566, a bill was brought into
Parliament, with a little book, printed in 156?, appended
to it, and which did not include the 29th article. Lambe's
book, in a note, stated that there were no copies of this
little book published till 1563. Its contents wore the
articles agreed upon by Convocation in 1562. The bill of
1566, with the book annexed, was progressing through
the Legislature, but its course was then arrested by
Queen Elizabeth, on the ground that it encroached on her
prerogative. . The Puritan members of the Legislature
resisted the clause in the 20th article, areeeling the Church's
power to determine controversies as to ceremonies and
doctrine ; and as Queen Elizabeth in 1566 stopped her Par-
liament for, as she alleged, denying her earipremacy, so in
1571 she was not likely to scruple to add an article of
her own accord, and without their authority. Dr. Lambe's
work gave a fac-simile of the imprinted book referred to in
the 13th of Elizabeth from a copy in the library of St.
John's College, Cambridge, and which did not contain the
211th article or the first clause in the 20th. Convocation
itself took no step in 1566 for framing articles of religion,
but it petitioned the Sovereign to pass the bill of that year.
This shoWed that that body did not wish to press upon the
clergy the 29th article or the beginning of the 20th. Then
comes the year 1571. Parliament met in April, and on the
7th of that month the measure was introduced which
eventually became the famous statute the 13thfof Eliza-
beth. This bill was invariably called the bill of last ses-
sion—that was of 1566. Sir Simon Dawes, a high autho-
rity on the Parliamentary history of this period, exactly
identified the bills of 1566 and 1571. If there was any evi-
dence of the existence of a printed book containing the
Thirty-nine Articles it ought to be found' before the 29th
of May, 1571, on which day Parliament was dissolved.
Now, there was nothing to show that Convocation had
ordered any work to be published in which the 29th article
appeared.' In support of this view the learned counsel
quoted as authorities the works of Lambe and Bennett.
He maintained, first, that there was no edition of the ar-
ticles before 1511 which included the 29th article ; and,
second, that the first known edition which contained it
was a quarto edition, which could not have been published
before the 4th June, but which was perhaps in type on that
date. The uncertainty in which the whole point as to the
29th article was involved was made more apparent by the
conduct of convocation, which, by its 36th canon, passed
in 1604, and making the articles binding on the clergy,
took no notice of the 13th of Elizabeth, but made the
quarto copy the basis of its deliberation. The learned coun-
sel then quoted from a correspondence between Archbishop
Parker and Lord Burleigh, with reference to the 29th ar-
ticle in connection with a marginal note (viz., Sup. Johan
tractat., 26) from St. Augustine, to show that the article
was still sub juoice on June 4, 1571. Archbishop Parker
afterwards struckoutthis note, and the article was printed
without it. This point was the more important, as the
Archdeacon of Taunton had all along maintained that his
interpretation of this article was strictly consistent with
the authority of St. Augustine. If an imprinted book was
made binding on the clergy by one of the severest acts
which Parliament ever passed, inflicting deprivation on
those who put an erroneous interpretation on the articles
of the Church, it was most important to inquire whether
this tremendous weapon was to be wielded against
the clergy in respect of all the articles, or only in respect
of a certain number of them. If this article had formed
part of the statute of Elizabeth on the 29th of 24ty, 1571,
bow could Archbishop Parker have canvassed /. e possi-
bility of altering it on the 4th of June, se date
of his letter- rehitive to the marginal note from
St. Auguatine/.. Having referred tbe, authority" of
Hallana's Coimtitutional Fligory famous dispute-
respecting the first clause of the 20th article, which Laud
was accused by the Puritans of having forged and foisted
into the articles, and contended that that clause wanted
confirmation of the Legislature, the learned counsel in-
sisted that the principal part of the 20th article must have
been introduced by the Royal authority alone. In fact,
the 20th and 29th articles, to use a common expression, ran
in couples throughout the whole of Queen Elizabeth's
reign, both being either omitted together or included to-
gether ; and nobody could suppose that the monarch who
did not scruple to put in the important part of the 20th
clause would have hesitated to insert a clause of such infe-
rior significance as the 29th article was in those times con-
sidered to be. Bennett did not assert that there was, on
the 29th of May, 1571, when Parliament dissolved, a book
containing the 29th article. What that authority con-
tended for was that Parliament, when it separated, knew
that the Convocation intended to print such a book, and
that, therefore, the article had a binding authority. That
position was, however, wholly untenable, and the only in-
ference could be that the article was put in by the Queen's
authority. In winding up his elaborate and intricate ar-
gument the learned counsel observed that the penalty of
the 13th of Elizabeth could not fairly be visited on his
client for the misinterpretation of an article which the
whole current of authority showed never to have belonged
to that statute. Ho deliberately defied any judicial mind
calmly to weigh the authorities on the subject and not
admit—whichever way the balance of evidence might in-
cline—that there was the greatest possible doubt whether
the 29th article was, or was not, in the book referred to by
the statute of Elizabeth. He might say it was demonstrable
that that article was not in the book, but he would content
himself with taking lower ground and saying that there s as
at least the greatest doubt upon the point; and he put it to
the Court with confidence that this moat severe penal sta-
tute ought not to be awakened from its sleep of ages—not
against a clergymen claiming to hold doctrines opposed to
the articles of the church, but against one who said he
advisedly maintained and was ready to subscribe all those
articles—against one who said, bona fide, " I think this a
correct interpretation of the articles of the Church of Eng-
land ; and, if I err, I err in the company of the greatest
divines of that church." To defy all the high authorities r
he had cited on this question, and to smite such a man with
a sentence of deprivation, would be to act in contravention
of the spirit, and, he humbly but boldly added, in contra-
vention also of the letter, of the statute.
A short adjournment then took place.
On the return of his Graco and the assessors into court, tr.
Dr. Lushington said—Dr. Buford, tlford, his Grace will hear
i,
you.

{t vv. s."

THE ART TREASURES EXHIBITION-1857.

Mr. J. C. Deane, the general commissioner of the
Exhibition, has just returned from a very, successful tour
in Scotland, in the course of which he has received most
valuable offers of assistance from the owners of art-
treaectes in -thee-country, the particulars of which will •
be announced a few days hence. In the meantime we
have the pleasure of giving the following additional lists
at pictures, &c., to be lent by eminent contributors to
the Exhibition. Among them will be found the first
collections of modern works which have not yet been
presented. •
Miss Burdett Coutts will contribute the following :--
1. Peter Oliver—Sir Kenelm Digby and Family,
copied from Vandyck.
2. Peter Oliver—Another of Sir Kenelm Digby.
3. Peter Oliver—Lady Venetia Digby; companio
to the above.
4. Wilson—Italian landscape.
5. Raphael—The Agony in the Garden.
6. Paul Veronese—Mary Magdalen anointing the
Feet of the Saviour.
7. Ludovioo Carracci—The Virgin and Child, sur-
rounded by Saints.
S Claude Lorraine--A small landscape (No. 11 of
Liber VeritatiO.
9. Domenichino—lnfant Christ, with Instruments
of the Passion.
10. Gainsborough—Landscape.
11. Sir Joshua Reynolds—Cupid and Psyche. •
12. Watteau—Two small pictures.
13. Nicolas Poussin—View of the Campegna of Rome.
14. Murillo—The Infant Saviour and St. Joseph.
15. Tintoretto—Sketch for the Miracle of St. Mark.
Lord Dunmore, of Dunmore-park, near Falkirk, has
an extremely valuable collection of pictures, the follow.
ing six of which will be exhibited : • -
1. Nicolas Poussin—Landscape with Orpheus
Eurydice.
2. Velasquez_Shepherds Crowned, leading a bull.
3. DOPRO Dr/SRI-Adoration of the Shepherds,
4. Giulio Romano—The Conversion of St. Paul.
5. Leonardo da Vinci Madonna and Child.
6. Salvator Rosa—Landscape, with Agar and leh.
mad.

The committee have recently been in communication
with Mr. Sidney Herbert, whe has not only promised
contributions from his own collection, bet has comrnn-
nicated with Lord Pembroke, who kindly offers the fol-
lowing collection of pictures and statues
1. Early picture—representing Richard IL and
Saints.
2. Andrea Mantegna—Judith.
3. Lucas Van Leyden—A. card party.
4. Mabuse —Three children of Henry VII.
5. Holbein—Father of Sir Thomas More.
6. Rubms—Landscape, with sunset.
7. Robens--Four children.
8. Vandyck—Lady Mary Ilerbert, Duchess of Rich.
mond.

Dr. Bayford then rose, and, after expressing some stir
prise that all the arguments had not been exhausted on the
former occasions, observed that he now found an argument
had been omitted which had been embodied in a protest, and
which had now been elaborately brought before the Court
Numerous references bad been made to Bennett and to Dr.
Lamb, but nothing had been advanced from Cardwell, who
was an equally eminent authority. Without pretending to of the research of his learned friend he had anticipated
that the point now brought forward would be raised, and
was prepared to have dealt with it on the last occasion.
Before proceeding to answer the arguments which had been
adduced he would refer to the protest of the venerable
archdeacon, respecting which Dr. Phillimore had said very
little. This was a proceeding under articles by authority
of the 36th canon as well as under the 13th of Elizabeth,
and that canon, it was admitted, embraced the 29th
article. Objection was taken that the archdeacon had
maintained doctrine contrary to the articles of the Church
of England, agreed upon by the Convocation of 1662, and
the words upon which the article was founded were
taken from the 36th canon, and not from the statute of
Elizabeth, which was only referred to in the next article ofi
of the suit, as pointing out the punishment to be inflicted
if the case of the promoter were made out. This dis- t.'"hu
tiuction prevailed throughout the articles which had been
1-' w
drawn up in the snit. It was true that it was a proceed-
ing under the statute of Elizabeth, but it also charged a the
breach of the articles as certified by the canon, about which gal
Vier° could be no dispute. Supposing it wore made out, 1,11
that the articles under which the offence was alleged were lit'
not the articles referred to by the statute of Elizabeth, his t'
learned friend had not attempted to show what would be
the result of establishing that fact. He totally ignored the
articles recognised by the 36th canon. Supposing, again,
that the 29th article was got rid of, no doubt the finding of
the Court was that the archdeacon had preached doctrines
contrary and repugnant to the 28th and 29th articles, and
about the 28th article there was not a shadow of doubt
that it was included in the statute of Elizabeth. The pro-
test blinked the real question, and made no reference to
the fact that the Court had deliberately expressed an opi-
nion that the archdeacon was guilty of preaching doctrine
contrary to the 28th article ; but if the case were exactly as
Dr. Phillimore had argued it, it would only amount to this,
that the archdeacon was guilty of preaching doctrine con-
trary to one instead of two articles. He was, consequently,
undoubtedly amenable to punishment, and the only effect