The Sun.
London, England, 1861-02-27 00:00:00

TIIR UPPER HOUSE.

Tho Archbishop prewded in the Upper House, which
-ninbled in Queen Anne's Bounty-office. There were
ent the Bishops of London, Winchester, Oxford,
landaff, Lincoln, Glocester and Bristol, St.
^nd Norwich.
DETITIONS.

at,
also pre..
St. David's, i
Asapli, Salisbury,

-resented a petition frc)m cer-
The Bishop of LLANvm-v .-m disapproval of an thin clergy in the diocess
in-
tended revision of the Prayer E They stated that
t* b.
:ed, that any
they did not believe, as was sometime§
Dissenters would be won over to the Church by u:ty Litur-
gical revision that might take place.
The Bishop of LONDON presented a petition from the
clergy of the diocess of Worcester praying that an autho-
rised book of hymns might be prepared for general use
under the sanction of her Majesty.
The Bishop of LINCOLN presented a petition from the
rural deanery of North Holland in his diocess, praying for
special services for those who were to be received into the
Church as adults.

The Bishop of OXFORD, OR behalf of the Bishop of
Bangor, presented petitions in opposition to the abolition
of church rates, and praying Convocation to resist the
attempted spoliation. The petitioners added that they
would not offer any opposition to any improvements the
Church might require.
TILE QUEEN'S LICENSE EMPOWERING CONVOCATION TO

PROCEED TO ACTION.

Mr. F. H. DYKE, the Queen's Proctor, by direction of
the archbishop, proceeded to read her Majesty's licence, em-
powering Convocation to proceed to actual business. It set
forth that her Majesty had, for divers weighty causes,
given and granted full free licence, liberty, and authority to
the Most Rev. Father in God the Archbishop of Canterbury
and the clergy of the province, that they should make from
time to time in the present Parliament any agreements upon
and concerning a repeal of the 29th Canon of 1603, or any
part of the same, and giving them, at the same time, power
to substitute a new canon, and to promulgate and execute
such new canon as they may think convenient for the ser-
vice of Almighty God and the better government of His
Church, provided that such canon be not contrary or re-
pugnant to the orders and services of the Church of Eng-
land already establishe 1, and provided also that the said
canon shall not be of any force or effect until by letters
patent under the great seal it shall be confirmed.
THE 29TH CANON OF THE CHURCH.

The Bishop of OXFORD said that as he was the person who
moved tha application to the Crown for the licence which
had been granted, it appeared seemly that he shoull now
move the alteration of the canon to do what they were em-
powered by the licence which had just been read. The
canon in question provided that for each child brought for
holy baptism there should be three sponsors, the parents
who brought the child for baptism not being allowed to act
in that capacity. He should move that the canon should be
so altered so as to allow the .parents of the child to act as
sponsors together with one friend in whom they had confi-
dence, thus making the three sponsors required by the rubric
of the Church. (The right rev. prelate read the verbal al-
terations which he proposed to make in the canon, so as to
secure the change.) He believed that the present r ule was
a great stumbling-block in the way of baptism, and he,
therefore, only wished to see the canon altered in that one
respect. The restriction which at present existed was not
at all in accordance with the practice of the primitive
Church, for during the first 400 years after Christ, so far as
they were able to ascertain, it was a matter of ordinary rule
that the parents should bring their childrep for baptism ac-
companied bya Christian friend, male or female as the case
might be, and that they should then answer for the child's
nurture in the Christian faith, the intention of the Church
being to provide in times of danger to the Christian faith
that there should be some one to train the child in religion
in case of the parents being cut off by persecution or by un-
timely death. In 400 years after Christ, he believed, by
the admission of all, that was the rule which prevailed, and
as the Church of England had always wished to adapt itself
to the primitive rule the fact of proving that this was the
primitive rule would be sufficient to justify the motion he
had made. To say, as had been said, that the proposed
new canon would be contrary to the lex and consueludo of
this country his lordship proceeded to show by a very ela-
borate argument was erroneous. During Puritan times a
very dangerous error grew up—namely, that nobody but a
parent could present his own child for baptism. This was
founded upon the doctrine of election, the theory being that
an elect parent should present his own elect child. To bear
witness against this growing and dangerous limitation of
God's great gift of baptism the alteration was made. Now
came The question whether it was expedient for them to
maintain the alteration from the primitive use. He thought
it was inexpedient for many reasons. It seemed to him that
the present danger of limiting the gifts of God in baptism
was the notion that the spiritual gifts of baptism depended
on the actual faith of the sponsors then and there present.
Such a view was diametrically contradicted by the services of
the Church of England, which laid down that if necessary a
minister might by himself baptize a child, and that his act
would not be altered by the fact that he was an ungodly man.
Moreover, the Church declared, immediately after the bap-
tism, " Seeing that this child is regenerate," &c., marking
thereby that, whatever meaning was to be put upon the word
" regenerate," the benefits of baptism were conferred in virtue
of the Church, and not in virtue of the sponsors then and
there present. The experience which he bad had from the
clergy of all parts of the country showed that this diffi-
culty connected with sponsors was a great hindrance in the
way of baptism. Persons in the higher ranks of life could
easily find friends who would join with them in offering
their children, and who would supply their lack of service
in educating them; but this did not at all apply to the poorer
classes. Their Lordships who knew anything of the work-
ing of this rule among the working population knew some-
thing of the hack-sponsorship which prevailed. In a coun-
try parish where he was for some years he knew in nine
cases out of ten who would be the sponsors in cases of bap-
tism before he entered the church. They were persons who
made it a point of acting in that capacity for the purpose of
getting the little entertainment they might receive from the
parents after the ceremony was over. The alteration in the
canon which he proposed would secure the restoration of a
great Christian institution to its primitive vigour.
The Bishop of LINCOLN, in seconding the motion, said
that if they were not in a position to deal with this matter
before receiving the Royal licence it was high time that they
should have that power. He was not blind to the import-
ance of having as many pious sponsors as possible, in order
that they might bo a guarantee to the Church in every case
of baptism, and he should be sorry so to alter the canon
that the number of sponsors would be limited. In all the
large manufacturing towns of the country, where the popu-
lation had outgrown the appliances of public worship and
pastoral visitation the obligation of the canon was nil—it
had ceased to be acted upon. Clergymen charged with the
spiritual oversight of thousands of souls went to their
churches, found large numbers of infants and grown-up
persons, and were utterly at a loss whether the children
were duly provided with sponsors, or whose sponsors the
people were. He had been informed by many clergymen
that in answer to the question why people did not bring
their children to baptism, they had been told that it was
because they could not afford the supper which the sponsors
expected. Others took them to the Wesleyan chapel, where
no sponsors were required.
The Bishop of LLANDAFF expressed his desire to see the
canon altered, on the ground that it was not and could not
be practically acted upon as it at present stood.
The Bishop of SALISBURY said that neither on practical
nor theoretical grounds could he come to the conclusion that
any alteration in the canon was necessary. It had been
assumed that thorn could be no doubt as to the primitive
usage with regard to baptism. He thought it very likely
that in primitive times there was only one sponsor. He
felt, however, that I his change would beproductive of great
danger, and that it would not lessen the practical difficulties
which had been compfined of.

The Bishop of ST. DAVID'S said it had always appeared
to him tliat the inevitable tendency of the present practice
had been to weaken the sense of responsibility in the minds
of parents by a nominal transfer of that responsibility to
persons who could not generally be expected to feel it.
The Bishop of LONDON said that personally he felt very
much the gravity of the present meeting. This was the first
occasion since he became a member of Convocation, and for
very many years before, that they had met for the distinct
transaction of business under the authority of the Crown,
and it was scarcely possible to exaggerate the importance of
their proceedings. He confessed that be had, if he might
venture to say so, on former occasions felt that when they
had assembled in that house there was a want of practical
character in their meetings, because he knew that although
there was every desirethat they should have an opportunity
of expressing their opinions, and although they knew that
the opinions so expressed might have a very great influence
on the country in general, yet ho did not feel that they were
empowered to proceed with any distinct business. But
their meeting to-day was of a different character. They had
assembled, and were called upon to discuss this question of
the 29th canon by the authority of the Crown as an integral
part of the constitution of this country. Important as such
a duty would be at anytime, it was the more important now,
when they could not conceal from them selves that the ancient
institutions of the country were passing through their trial,
He could not conceal from their lordships that when he took
part in the application to her Majesty to grant them licence
to act this was fully present to his mind. It seemed to him
that the time had come when it was desirable that the Church
of England should deliberate on some safe point on which
no harm could possibly be done, and that they should be
able to show that those alarms which had filled his own
mind as well as others had no foundation. Their lordships
would forgive him mentioning this subject, but the matter
was sure to be canvassed elsewhere, and it was well that all
persons should understand the altered position in which
Convocation stood that day in consequence of the Royal
license. The right rev. prelate, in a speech of great eloquence
and power, preceeded to examine the mem which should

induce them to act with regard to the motion before the
house, and fr( ►,n a large experience, declared his conviction
that the canon . ought to be alto) ed in the wav proposed.
Th© Bishops of WINCHESTER and GLOCVSTER having
spoken in favor tr of: the motion, and the Bishop of NonwrCH
having give.n a pa rtial support,
The Archt,'.ishc by of CANTERBURY expressed his fear
that the canon in' its altered state would not remove all the
difficulties which h ad been adverted to, but hoped it would
tend to reanove som e of them.
The resolution was then put to the house and carried
without a dissentient:- „

The Bishop of OxrCRD moved that the amended canon
should be reported by hit. Grace the President to the Lower
House, and that its concurrence should be asked.
The meiiion was agreed to.
MISSIONARY BISHOPS.

The Bishop of Oxroun inquired whether any answer
had been. received from the officers of the Crown in refer-
ence to the Trestion as to the consecration of missionary
bishops in this country.
The A. rchbishop of CANTERBURY said that the question
he had en, bmitted to the law officers of the Crown was,
whb 'her m issionary bishops appointed to exercise episcopal
C'ernd the limits of her Majesty's dominions
'illy consecrated. in this country. The answer
d was signed by Sir John Harding, the
efh(l;:nu":ll(lettani°l);::tiA.at'Fist ;r Sir Richard Bethel), the Attorney-
General; and Sir
. Atherton, the Solicitor-Geeeral. It
stated that they
were
:not aware of any statute or yule by
which the Archbishop V,
of
O. Canterbury or his suffragan
bishops would violate any wpy consecrating bishops in
this country who were to exeru2se their episcopal functions:
beyond the limits of her Majesty's &minions, but bishops,
so consecrated must not assume the status, style, or dignity
of bishops while in her Majesty's dominions. At the same
time, they thought that such consecration in this country
ought to be discouraged and deprecated. The Secretary, in
forwarding this opinion, added that Lord Palmerston and
Sir George Lewis entirely concurred in the latter part of
the memorandum.
THE SUPREME COURT' OF APPEAL.

The P:ishop of OXFORD inquired 'Whether any answer had
been received as to the intention of Parliament relating to
the Sepretne Court of Appeal in regard to doctrine?
The Arci.
ibishop of CANTERBURY said that he had re-
ceived a letter' from Lord Palmerston assuring his grace that
before any bill was introduced proposing to alter the' Su-
premo Court of Appeal, in matters of doctrine and disei-
pline, Convocation would be consulted.
After the transaction of some other business, the house
adjourned.

THE LOWER HOUSE.

The Lower House assembled in the Jerusalem Chamber,

the Von. E. Bickers teth, M.A., Archdeacon of Buckingham,
acted as Prolocutor. There were also present the Hon. ands
Rev, D. Pellew, Dean of Norwich ; the Ven. Archdeacon.
Halo, London; the Very' Rev. Harvey Goodwin, D.D.,
Dean of Ely ; the Ven. Archdeacon Denison, Lord Alwyn°
Compton, the Rev. Sir G. Provost, the Rev. Henry Mac-
kenzie, Archdeacon Sandford (Coventry), Archdeacon
Thorpe, the rev. Messrs. Ommanney, Vincent, Jebb,
Mildmay, MayhoNv, and Glynn.
Es,SAYS AND REVIEWS.

On
peu the
ed motion
in order r. JELF, the standing orders were
sus
the house might proceed to address
d of
that
his Grace the President on the subject.
Dr. JELF said he proinoss'cl an address to the Upper House
praying the official attention of his Grace and their Lord-.
mysbdlf to this serious task I
ships to the volume called. Estuys and Reviews. He pro-
ceeded to say—ln addressing
feel deep responsibility and an iudest:ribable feeling of pain.
As to the responsibility, it is not ntet.ely that I feel that a
very important object has devolved upon very inadequate
hands, but that I am undertaking that 7vhici: is no proper
act of mine more than others, the bringing forward this
subject, though I have a constitutional right to .do it; but
circumstances having placed me in this position I thought
it my duty to proceed. The house having suspended the
standing orders, I apprehend I am in the position of having
their sympathy and approval in bringing forward the mo-
tion. The responsibility I allude to is my having deter-
mined on this course against the opinions of others around.
Me—opinions fully entitled to great weight, And I feel the
utmost respect for them ; but I feel, after weighing them
all, that I can come to only one conclusion--that it is my
duty to proceed. The objections that I allude to more par-
ticularly are such as these :—" You will increase the cir-
culation of the volume and increase the agitation." But I
think when we reflect that the volume has already reached.
the sixth heavy edition, and that it is canvassed in all parts
of English society and when I reflect on the agitating
which is thus created, not only among the clergy, but the
laity of the Church of England, the number of comments
that have been written upon it, and the notoriety the volume
has already attained, I cannot but think that, as far as my
motion is concerned, it will not increase the circulation of
the book. I should say there are some remarkable things
which strike me regarding this book, and the first is that.
the enemy, by which I understand the direct natural
enemies of the Church of Christ, and more particularly
the Socinians and the Atheists, have always employed
this volume in a most serious way in detail, in order to
propound their own opinions. I have it on authority
that in Leeds the Atheists have from time to time printed
the volume, or parts of it, in order to spread their
own opinions. They are printing extracts from the
volume, and are about to circulate them among those who
entertain the miserable opinions of Atheism. lam far from
attributing to the volume any notion of Atheism. I think
there are strong opinions, which every one must regret, in it,
but without saying that they intended it as the result it
strikes me as an important feature that the enemies of our
religion are employing this volume for their own unrighteous
purposes. The rev. gentleman entered very fully into the
nature of the statements relied upon by the seven writers of
the essays, and quoted several lengthened extracts, with a
view to show their dangerous tendency.
Dr. M'CAVL, in an address strongly condemnatory of the
doctrines which he contended the reviews and essays put
forward, seconded the motion.
Archdeacon SANDFORD, while agreeing with the previous
speakers in repudiating the principles and docidues which
were understood to be promulgated by the book in question,
suggested that fur convocation to pass a solemn resolution
against the volume would be giving to the opinions it con-
tained an importance to which they wore not entitled, and
by exciting public curiosity add to the mischief which it
was calculated to produce. He moved the previous ques-
tion, as the meat practical mode of relieving the house from
the difficulty.
Archdeacon GRANT seconded the amendmett.
Archdeacon DENISON protested against slurthig over an
important matter like this by the previous question, thus
holding forth to the clergy and the country that convocation
feared to carry out its functions. It was their duty to notice
a book of this infidel tendency, pat forward as it was by men
high in authority, and to stamp it with their condemnation.
There were numerous precedents for such a course, but it
had been urged that the time for ecclesiastical censure had.
passed. It should, however, be remembered that if, now'
the question had been brought before them, they allowed A,
to be set aside as proposed, they would in effect be tacitly
admitting the principle for which the book contended—that
of allowing private and individual judgment to over-ride
ecclesiastical and scriptural authority.
The Dean of Nonwicir could not Bee how they could pm
any more severe censure upon the book than had been.
f.lready pronounced by the bishops, and seeing that their
lordships were still considering whether further steps
should be taken, it would scarcely be decorous for the
Lower House to send up the proposed address. He thought
it would be sufficient to say that they fully concurred in the
condemnation which had been passed by the bishops on
the book, and suggested a motion to that effect in substi-
tution of that of Dr. Jeff.

The Rev. F. VINCENT concurred in condemning the book,
but thought the house should not act in the matter pending
the decision cf the bishops, whether further ecclesiastical
proceedings should be taken or not. Authoritative decisions
by ecclesiastical tribunals no longer regulated the influenco
of publications, as in days past.
Archdeacon Moo doubted Whether, until they had
carefully read the book, and compared the quotations made
by Dr. Jolf with the context, they could be in a position to
pass such a resolution, They were not at all certain that
the interpretation which had been put upon the passage's
quoted were those intended by the writers. At all events,
they ought to be sure from the writers themselves that they
were putting the right construction upon their writings
before they proceeded to condemn them.
The Dean of ELY observed that one of the essays was
written by a person who was personally dear to him—one
who, as had been truly asserted, had given up his prospects
of a fellowship at Cambridge because his views were not in
accordance with what he would have been called upon to
profess had ho taken holy orders, for which he had been
named.; Ho (the Dean of Ely) felt, considering his con-
nexion with the person referred to, that if he voted in favour
of the amendment without a word, he might be thought
anxious to screen that person; and if, on the other hand,
he said anything on the subject, he might be in danger of
committing himself in the minds of thosa who heard him, and
be supposed to be standing forth as the defender of what he •
did not wish to defend. However, he wished to say in the
most distinct terms, that he did not approve of the volume,
and he thought with regard to the one essay he alluded to
especially, that while the writer was successful in demo-
lishing the adversary he raised up, he failed altogether
when he proceeded to the reconstructive part of the subject.
He was right when he told them what Genesis was not, but
when he proceeded to his own conclusion it was quite as
wild as those which he destroyed. The writer being a lay-
man was, however, at liberty to put forward his views ; but
as to the clerical writers, he could scarcely see how the
-holding of the views put forward by them was consistent
with the holding of the holy orders in the Church of Eng-
land. He considered that the proper course to pursue was,
not to adopt Dr. Jelf's motion, but to pass to the previous
questicn, and thus avoid giving any judgment, and, in
effect, declaring that the subject was one which it was tin-
ed v i sable for them to entertain.
The Rev. Mr. KENNAWAY supported the motion; and,
after some further discussion,
Dr. WORDSWORTH moved as a substitution for Dr. Jelf's
motion the following That the clergy of the Lower
House of Convocation of the province of Canterbury, having
regard to the unanimous censure which has been already
pronounced and published by the archbishops and bishops
of both provinces oneeratnadinnopeiNnieiownss,,coeanttaerintaeidn anearnest
ina certain
hook entitled `Essays
hope that under the Divine blessing the faithful zeal of the
Christian church may be enabled to counteract the pernici-
ous influence of the erroneous opinions contained in the said

volume."
Archdeacon DENTSON seconded this, and after some re-
marks from Dr. Jebb and Dr. Williams, who advocated an
adjournment of the debate, and expressed a doubt as to the
wisdom of condemning the book, Dr. Jelf consented to
withdraw his resolution in favour of Dr. Wordsworth's,
which was carried, the previous question being negatived
on a show of hands by a large majority.
The house then adjourned until to-morrow (this day).

LONDON : Printed and Published by MURDO YOUNG, at
No. 112, Strand, Printer, at THE Surr Office, No. 112,Stral2d,
in the Precinct of the Savoy. in the County of Middlesex,
WeclileAdq, February 27, PM

(~~
i ~~: j~

~--~

NG, at
itraztd,
dleaex, \