The Sun.
London, England, 1861-06-21 00:00:00

ESSAYS AND REVIEWS.

The Lower House resumed its sittings in the Jerusalem
Chamber; the archdeacon of Berkshire presiding as pro-
locutor.
The attendance was less full than on former occasions,
but including most of the leading members of the house.
The Earl of Harrowby, Lord Cranworth, Mr. M. Milnes,
and several M.P's. were amongst the strangers, who were
unusually numerous.
Some formal business having been transacted,

The PROLOCUTOR read the message from the Presideni
directing the house to examine and give its opinion as to
the book entitled " Essays and Reviews."
The Rev. Mr. MASSINGBERD gave notice that if the mo-
tion of Archdeacon Denison should ba carried, he would
move an address to the President and the Upper House,
praying that they might proceed rather by way of declara-
tion of their own belief, than by way of synodical judgment.
Canon WORDSWORTH gave notice of the following amend-
ment to Archdeacon Denison's motion :—" That the eccle-
siastical courts of this realm are the proper tribunals for the
trial of heresy. That in the ordinary exercise of its func-
tions, convocation is a deliberative assembly, and not a
judicial tribunal ; and that if in any particular case, such as
that now before this house, it proposes to enter upon any
deliberations with the view to perform a judicial act and to
pronounce a synodical sentence upon a book, it ought first
to consider whether a Hennae from the crown may not be
requisite for that purpose. That a respectful communica-
tion to this effect be sent to the Upper House."
Archdeacon Demsorr—l rise to move a resolution, of
which I have given notice. The resolution is :—" That it
is the opinion of this house that there are sufficient grounds
for proceeding to a synodical judgment on the book entitled
' Essay and Reviews.' " If this resolution is carried, I
shall ask the house to communicate its decision to the
Upper House, together with a copy of the report of the
committee. The question then before the house, and the
question upon which the house is called upon to vote, is
this, " Are there or are there not sufficient grounds for pro-
ceeding to a synodical judgment on the book ?" lam de-
sirous to state this formally at the outset, because in the
course of our discussion last Tuesday this question was a
good deal mixed up with a further question which may
have to be discussed in its time and in its place, but which
I apprehend, and I submit it most respectfully to the con-
sideration of all the members of this house, is not in any
shape before us now. (Hear, hear.) The question to which
I allude is that with respect to synodical judgment upon a
book alleged to be heretical and dangerous to true religion.
The question of the advisability of such a judgment is not
in any shape before this house. (Hear, hear.) So much
turns upon this point that I have been anxious to state it
in the outset because I thing it will be seen very clearly, as
I apprehend, that it affects the whole of the amendments
which have been moved to my resolution, and must be very
closely taken into consideration by every member of this
house in the course of this debate. Now, gentlemen, I say
the advisability of proceeding is not the question before us
at this time in any shape, and I say further,and I beg mem-
bers to consider this, for it is a most important point, the
question belongs in the first instance, not properly to us, but
to the Upper House, because all actual proceedings on
synodical judgment must emanate from the Upper, and not
from this house. (Hear.) The Upper House might have
asked our opinion on the general question in its largest sense
—that is whether, under any circumstances, it is advisable
for this synod to proceed to such a judgment, which is the
question raised by one of the amendments, notice of which
has been given by the Archdeacon of Sarum. But the
Upper House has not done so, and I have no desire to in-
terfere with the functions of the Upper House. But it is
hardly competent even for them to submit such a question
as this would amount to, which is the question of parting
with one of the principal functions of this assembly—of
parting with it for ever. The bishops of the church of
England have never taken such a step, and God forbid that
they ever should. But the Upper House might have asked
our opinion on that particular point—that is, on the advisa-
bility of proceeding in this particular case to a synodical
judgment. This is the question raised by the amendment
of Sir H. Thompson ; but they have not done so. They
have assumed that it is advisable so to proceed, if there are
grounds in their judgment, as in ours, for so doing. They
have not asked our opinion on either of these points ; there
is no likelihood, I submit, of their ever asking it en the
first, and if they do ask it on the second, which I doubt,
then it will be for us to consider it and give an answer ; but
at present we have not been asked for any opinion on the
matter; and although I am anxious to guard the privileges
and liberties of this house, still I am no less desirous, for the
sake of the character and dignity of this synod of the pro •
vince of Canterbury, that we should not appear to trench
on the proper functions of the house of bishops. The ques-
tion then which we have been asked, and to assist us in
answering which the committee has been appointed and has
reported—to assist, I say—and I beg the committee to mark
this, because we are not assuming that the report of the
committee is the only means whereby the members of this
house can arrive at a conclusion—but the question to assist
us in answering which the committee has been appointed
is simply this—are there or are there not sufficient grounds
for proceeding to a synodical judgment upcn the book
entitled "Essays and Reviews ?" I earnestly trust, for
the sake of the character of our deliberations, which I
believe are being watched with the greatest anxiety, not
only by our clerical brethren but by thousands of the laity
of the Church of England—l earnestly trust that we shall
most carefully confine ourselves to the one question, Aye or
No. In my judgment, having given the best consideration
to this matter, and taken all the advice I could procure,
parliamentary and otherwise, upon it, I am fortified in say-
ing that no one of the amendments of which notice has been
given in this house ought to be entertained by this house
to-day. On the contrary, I contend that they are out of
form, out of order, and ought not to be put. I say I ear-
nestly trust that we shall carefully confine ourselves to one
question, Aye or No. It has been too much the habit of
this house to get rid of the most important questions by
such motions as the previous question, or other similar ways
of passing by a great decision. I think the house will agree
with me that it would be utterly inconsistent with our cha-
racter and reputation, with the dignity of a synod, and
with the subject enatter which we have before us to-day,
to say that we should deal with the question brought under
our notice in any way but in a simple, clear, straightforward
manner, such as the public will understand. What we are
called upon to declare is, " Are there, or are there not,
sufficient grounds for proceeding to a synodical judgment?"
For myself, following the rule I have endeavoured to lay
down as based both upon the nature and the facts of the
case, I shall, if I am permitted, abstain most carefully
from entering at this time into any part of the large ques-
tion of synodical judgment, that is to say, of spiritual cen-
sure by the Church in her corporate capacity, and of its bear-
ing upon the true position and the vitality of the Church. I
am not in the habit of making long speeches in this house,
but if the general issue of synodical judgment be raised at
any future time, which I can hardly contemplate as a thing
possible to be raised in a synod, or the particular ques-
tion of its advisability in the present case, I should
necessarily have much to say upon both these questiol
But I submit respectfully to the house that neither of
them are before us now, and that if the two questions be
mixed up and allowed to run into one another, our debate
must needs fall into great confusion of thought and speech.
I apply myself then to the one question before us—are
there, or are there not, sufficient grounds for .proceeding to
a synodical judgment upon the book? Now, the committee
have presented their report, as containing such sufficient
grounds. They have not said so in words, for this reason,
they considered that it was not their function to express
their opinion formally in this particular as a committee, but
afterwards, as members of the house; that is to say, now.
But the committee do not ask the house to adopt their re-
port, or to endorse it in all its particulars. There is not only
no necessity, but as it seems to me there is no place in this
,case fir any such adoption or endorsement of the report.
.The report contains the grounds upon which the committee
liaovne
hf
ao r ms b
ee
edn theirarrived opinion
at. ofit theia
probable
oßtuhta it t is only
of
one
us
out of many processes by which the same or a like conelu-
may have formed an opinion of the book the same or like
that of the committee,
b
the report. Others of
ut
us
againor t o and
and i n d
ue pp eonnd
se
may agree with the commit-
tee upon some of the heads ofallegation
the proofs adduced, but not upon all. Both these will have
Oar soma t yof
arrived at the conclusion that there are '
sufficient grounds,
but neither of them could, properly speaking,
adopt or
en-
dorse the report, the first because they have
come to their
conclusion without it; the 'second, because they do not
wholly agree with it, and yet both are ready to say'with
the committee that there are sufficient grounds. It is those
only who, after their own careful examination of the book,
and after weighing all the allegations and proofs of the cora-
mitee, are of opinion that there are not sufficient grounds—
it is these only who can, as appear to me, oppose my resolu-
tion. These will of course negative it, but how any others
can do so lamat a loss to understand. Above all, my kind
friend Sir H. Thompson (he will bear with me when I say
it), a member of the committee, who has given his most
cordial and unqualified assent to the report, is surely in no
position to affirm that there are not sufficient grounds. If
ho thinks there are sufficient grounds, I think he must vote
with me. May I then be permitted to express an earnest
hope that it will not be attempted to get rid of my resolution
by any other process than that of a direct negative? We are
asked to giyo a specific auswer to specific peals pitt to

us by the Upper House. It would not be right or wise, nor
indeed is it morally possible, for us to sb rink from giving that
answer. The report of the committee is one means of enab-
ling us to give that answer. If we had been asked whe-
ther, in our opinion, it is advisable to proeeed to a synodical
judgment in the case, it would have been our duty to answer
that question also. But the Upper House has not asked us
that question, and it is clearly not of the province a this
house to originate it. It rests with the bishops of the synod,
after receiving the opinion of the house that there are suffi-
cient grounds for proceeding, to decide whether or no it is
ultimately advisable to proceed, and what the form of pro-
cedure shall be. That they will proceed there appears to be
no room to doubt, but if they do not proceed they will tell us
why. If they do they will ask our concurrence in that pro-
cedure as shaped by their hands. That would be the time, if
anyone had doubts as to the advisability of the proceed-
ings, to ask this house to concur with him in a representa-
tion to the bishops to that effect; at present any such course
is not pertinent to the matter in hand, and would be, as I
regard it, an undue and unseemly interference with the
functions of the house of bishops. lam not without a hope
that what I have now said may serve to show that there is
really no room for either of the amendments to the resolu-
tion of which notice has been given, and there is no room
for anything but a direct negative; that the issue raised is
a simple issue, that no one is committed to the report
except the committee, and that to affirm the resolution
reserves to every member the option of discussion upon
the general question when the time shall come. I will
not further detain the house, except to express my
earnest hope—a hope which has been the subject of many
prayers—that nothing which I have done or said in this
matter: may have provoked anger or caused needless pain.
Dr. 111'Caur, seconded the motiop. He contended that this
book, " Essays and Reviews," involved the reconstruction
of Christianity; and if they parted with the old Christianity
th;i7aua-cilio part with the creeds, articles, and liturgy.

The infidels of England and the United States had welcomed
the book with delight, and held it as a proof that the Church
of England had taken a large step in advance. That was the
opinion of the enemies of that Church; but the friends of
the Church looked upon the book as fraught with danger,
and it had against it the unanimous verdict of the entire
episcopal bench and upwards of 10,000 of the clergy. He
denied the position of the book, that Christianity must be
reconstructed according to thediscoveries of modern science,
and brought into harmony with modern criticism, but
pointed out that there was really nothing in the discoveries
of science antagonistic with the Mosaic theory, quoting va-
rious authorities, showing that where any supposed diffe-
rence existed it arose from a misunderstanding of particular
terms in different languages. Despite the preface he held
that the book was one of united action, and that although
the writer might have written independently of each other
there was yet a united object, and each knew what the
others intended to do, and in one instance "a compact" be-
tween them was expressly spoken of. It was necessary that
the Church should interfere and condemn the book. It was
essential that they should come to some authoritative de-
claration concerning the heresy and unsoundness of the
book, in order that unsuspecting persons might be put on
their guard, and that others might be deterred from advanc-
ing in the same line of scepticism and Deism to their own
ruin. He did not consider that anything that had been
brought under the notice of Convocation, even in the time
of the Reformation, was so important as this, involving as
it did the question whether the Bible was the word of God
or not—(no, no, and hear hear)—whether our common faith
was established in truth or in error, (No, no, and hear.)
Sir H. THOMPSON having been called upon by the Prolo-
cutor to submit his amendment, which stood first in order
on the motion paper, remarked that there were several
amendments to be proposed, and amongst them one by Dr.
Wordsworth, referring to a matter of law, and if the rev.
doctor was right upon the legal point it appeared to him
(Sir H. Thompson) that they would be incurring the penal-
ties of a przemunire by proceeding at all in this business.
He would submit, therefore, that Dr. Wordsworth should
open this legal question, the decision upon which might
render all further proceeding not only unnecessary but im-
possible.
The PROLOCUTOR said it would be more convenient if Sir
H. Thompson would proceed with his amendment.

Sir H. THOMPSON read his amendment as follows:
"That the Prolocutor be requested to carry to the Upper
House a copy of the report, together with the following
message :—' That in obedience to the direction of his Grace
the President and of the Upper House, a committee of the
Lower House was appointed to examine the book entitled
" Essays and Reviews," and to report thereon to the Lower
House, in order that the Lower House might communicate
to the Upper Hcuse its opinion whether there are sufficient
grounds for proceeding to synodical action on the book.
The Lower House now send to the Upper House a copy of
the report of that committee. The Lower House are not
prepared to recommend the passing of synodical judgment
upon the book, but they desire to assure the Upper House
that they will give their most respectful attention to any
communication which may be sent down to them founded
on this report.' "

Archdeacon RANDALL-it might save time if I rise to
say, that immediately on that amendment being proposed I
shall appeal to the Prolocutor on the point of order whether
such an amendment can be put.

The Rev. C. E. KENNAW;IC would second such an appeal.
The PROLOCUTOR would at once put it to the house
whether the amendment was a proper one, and having done
so declared that it was rejected by the house, a large majo-
rity being adverse to it.