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

Archdeacon DENISON—I 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 cariied,. I
shall ask the house to commUnicate its decision to the
Upper House, together Witt 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
w heretical
eta hto e
synodical hear.) Teahr e
anxiousjudgmentquestion
h to
eartrue
uto
eSo t
religion. o
mucha
it
upon
state which
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
book
shapeoaolkl allude
allegedd e beforeisth t
that with respect
e
uso b neintw. (Hear,s e d
ha
dangerous
The question of the advisability of such a judgment is not
turns in anynsphoanp et beforethis
p otntthtibs a
t house,
have H
been
in the outset because I think- it will be seen very clearly, as
I apprehend, that it affects the whole of the amendments
which have been .roved 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, bile
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. Bat 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 on 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 privilege.
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
übcommittee
aei
rsi
nt
vhgee
awo
tnhal
nich teehal neu
es
committeet wo conclusion
—er
be by the members of this
assistutthielaqaubeesetinonaptpoointed
is simply
this—are there or are there not sufficient grounds
for proceeding to a synodical judgment upon 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
this house
eAtyoegoert No.rid of
It has
lm ob:tenimtpooormtanucthqtuheesthioanbiat
by
such motions as the previous question, or other similar. ways
Novfitphasmsientghbayt
ita wgroeuiatd be decision.
.I
inthienonkstihsteenhtowiusethwoilluracghraee-
racter and reputation, with the dignity of a synod, and
with the subjeot •matter 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 4lt
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 questions,
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 for any such adoption or endorsement of the report.
The report contains the grounds upon which the committee
arrivedttt
heh eee
proofs report.
have formed their opinion of the book. But it is only ono
out of many
mon has been arrived at. It is probable that many of us
thatmay ohtatvheefeoermmenadttatnee7biantionprotof r tthoe bookand itnhdeepseanmdeenotrlylikoef
uponetsotmheecoofnthoieuhsieoaldi
tshoaftpatlhl:rgeata.iroenand
sufficientupdon
adopt or
of
adduced,
ssees by which the same or a like conclu-
wbduohrtasnleleylbitahegerrreeopefowrthti:ehmtbitec,ofiaurnelddt,
,obf but not naogtauin omnayallagrßeoethwitthhetshe ewciolml have
-
bpyerecot apuebsroel
tyht speaking,they
ayr
e haver ea
ir
the committee that there are sufficient grounds. It conclusion without it; the second, because they do not
e
euealrreexaminationtnoto
mesufficient
6pp oseo finy ther
resolu-
tion. grounds—
iteo ol
tmoe Eiitasoyo grounds,
irtwhheaienth
that tee ahaerprepef
only who,easr ee only
nff tloeypr
wn hitheiropinion
a taohnwe,
and after weighing. all the allegations and proofs of the coin:
mtiolitnse.eth' These will of course negative it, but how any others
can do so lamat a loss to understand. Above all, my kind
friend Sir 11. 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
he 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 give a specific answer to a specific question put to