The Sun.
London, England, 1861-06-22 00:00:00

ESSAYS AND REVIEWS.

Previous to the resumption of the debate the following
notices of motions were given :

By Canon WooDGATE—In the event of Archdeacon
Denison's motion being carried, to add the following words :

—" That this hose do further recommend that the synodi-
cal judgment be confiaed to a declaration that the book in
question is contrarient to the doctrine of the Church of
England, and that all Christian people are hereby warned
against it."
The Dean of ELY gave notice of an amendment to be
moved in the event of the amendment now before the house
being lest :—" That inasmuch as since the committee was
appointed to examine and report on the book, notice had
been given by the Bishop of Salisbury of his intention to
take legal proceedings against one of the authors, this house
would represent to the Upper House that it would be in-
convenient that any opinion should be expressed at this time
by the Lower House to indicate that there are sufficient
grounds for proceeding to a synodical judgment, and in
making this representation the house adds that it has already
solemnly declared its opinion as to the objectionable charac-
ter of the book."

By Dr. JEREMIE—" That although there are grounds for
the strongest expression of moral censure it is not expedient
to proceed to a synodical judgment."
By Dr. Wordsworth—lf Archdeacon Denison's motion
should be carried, to move, " That the Lower House at the
same time asks to submit for the consideration of the Upper
House whether a royal license might not be requisite before
Convocation proceeds to pronounce a synodical judgment,
in which case its present deliberations are to be understood
as preparatory to petitioning the Crown for a license to
treat on the propriety of pronouncing such a judgment."
By Canon Selwyn—" That this house, having taken into
consideration the subject proposed to them by the Upper
House, beg respectfully to remind their lordships that the
Lower House has already expressed a strong opinion on the
nature and tendency of the book entitleed ' Essays and Re-
views,' in the resolution transmitted to the Upper House
on Feb. 26, 1861, which was as follows That the clergy
of the Lower House of Convocation of the province of Can-
terbury, having regard to the censure which has already
been pronounced and published by the archbishops and
bishops of the provinces of Canterbury and York upon cer-
tain opinions contained in a book entitled ' Essays and Re-
views,' entertain an earnest hope that under the divine
blessing the faithful zeal of the Christian:church in this, and
may be enabled to counteract the pernicious influences of
the erroneous opinions entertained in the said volume.' "

By the Rev. F. VINCENT—" That this house, in reply to
the question put to them by the Upper House, declares that
there are sufficient grounds for a synodical judgment of the
book, but desires not to be understood as intimating any opi-
nion as to the propriety of proceeding to such a judgment."
By Archdeacon THonr—" To add at the same time, this
house represents to the Upper House their belief that it is
not advisable to exercise any functions Convocation may be
entitled to in pronouncing a synodical judgment."
Archdeacon RANDALL spoke in support of Archdeacon
Denison's amendment. He remarked that if the writers
were going to be tried, the question that would arise would
not be the quality of the book but the animus of the writers.
But in forming a judgment on the book, the quality of the
book was everything and the animus of the writers was no-
thing. They were forming a judgment upon the book in
order to guide the people and to warn them against it if it
was an unsound book, and they must remember that the
mischief of a bad book might really be increased by the
high character of the writers. With regard to the writers,
Convocation was not well qualified to deal with them. He
disputed the positions taken on the previous day that, by
condemning the book, the} would be prejudging a case
already before the legal tribunals, and held that nothing
they might do there would have the slightest influence on
the courts of law. Nor would there be anything inconsis-
tent in Convocation condemning the book, and the court of
law acquitting the men. He denied that any royal license
was necessary to enable them to move in this matter. All
that the act of submission did in the way of restriction was
to prohibit Convocation from making a canon without the
royal license.

Professor JEREMIE, as a member of the committee ap •
pointed to examine the book, wished to say that had he
been present when the committee was moved for he should
have opposed its appointment, believing as he did that the
persons connected with the authorship of the book in ques-
tion were the least likely to pay deference to the authority
of the house. He thought the report of the committee a
fair statement of the case. With regard to the book itself,
he quite agreed with the committee as to the dangerous
and fatal character of the book, but it was another thing to
pronounce a judgment against it unless they were prepared
to carry that judgment. If they did pronounce judgment
against the book they would be constituting themselves into
a court of heresy—(no)—and would, he firmly believed, lose
character with the public, and seriously affect their own
usefulness. For these reasons he could not go the length
recommended by Archdeacon Denison.

Canon HEAVYSIDE held that it would be disrespectful,
after the Upper House had unanimously condemned the
book, for the Lower House to send up reasons in detail,
showing why the book should be condemned. They were,
in dealing with this important subject, bound to consider
external circumstances. They were bound to take into ac-
count public opinion. (Oh.) Why the House of Convoca-
tion existed by public opinion. (No.) No. Let them
commit an act that would turn public opinion against them,
and their doors would be closed again for a century. (Cheers
and Oh.) It was therefore important that they should carry
public opinion with them. Synodical judgment meant pro-
ceeding to a grave judicial censure on the part of Convocation
against the book and its authors. (No.) That was his
opinion. They had already given their opinion condemnatory
of the book, and no further opinion was necessary. He pro-
tested against the principle upon which the committee pro-
ceeded, and the house was called upon to proceed, viz., to fix
a joint responsibility upon all the authors who happened to
be contributors to the same book. It would be as reasonable
to make every writer in the Edinburgh or the Quarterly, or
in the Dictionary, or the Bible, responsible for everything
that might appear in those works. There was much in the
book which he could have no sympathy with, but as re-
garded that house it was essential that its proceedings, in or-
der to carry weight or respect with the public, should be, be-
yond the suspicion of partiality. He could not forget that
the majority of the committee, honourable and able as they
were, undoubtedly belonged to a school directly opposed to
the opinions of the essayists. (Oh, oh, and order.) He
believed those gentlemen did all they could to act fairly,
but nevertheless the public would feel that their report
emanated from men who were known to be generally opposed
to the opinions of the accused. The condemnation of the
book, so far from preventing the injury which its circulation
was calculated to produce on the minds of the young men
of our universities, would excite a sympathy for the writers
on the part of those young men, and promote the injury
which Dr. M'Caul and other speakers had represented.
No man at Oxford possessed in a stronger degree the sym-
pathy of the students of the university than Professor
Jewett. Did the house think they would detach the sym-
pathy of those young men from that eminent master by
this proceeding ? On the contrary, he believed the result
would be to knit them together more closely, and increase
his influence tenfuhl. (Irt ar, /, --eal.) For tho very purpose
then that Dr. M'Caul had in view he trusted the house
would take no such step as that recommended by the arch-
deacon's motion.

The Rev. J. FENDALL defended the committee against
the imputation of partiality, which, he said, their report
sufficiently disproved. He did not agree with the last
speaker as to the effect upon the youth of the university of
a formal condemnation by the synod of Canterbury against
a most mischievous book. He supported the original
motion, and regarded Archdeacon Honey's amendment as
not pertinent to the subject they were directed by the Upper
House to consider. -7 The Upper House had asked their
opinion upon one matter, and they had no right gratuitously
to tender an opinion upon another. The effect of the solemn
judgment of that house would be to condemn not only this
book, but all opinions written beforehand or hereafter
dsiomiitylsalardtutsoiy those which that book contained, and thus pro-
tect the religion, of the country and the interests of the
church.
essa They should think, not of the effect upon the
but
in
theth e
mattereffect whichm io
might
t thehe neglectve
upon ot
the
e thatouth house
the
t o
country and those who
were in communiony with the
church. The condemnation; of that house would doubtless
carry with it great moral weight, but those who opposed
this motion conveyed by their words a stronger condemna-
tion than the terms of the present. motion. It had been said
that opportunities should begiven for explanation, but no
explanation could do away with the pernicious taint which
pervaded
WAY supported the motion, draw-
trheegerdoer Hed proceeding"sof
in"reasonsgrrahe the
Rev, j
distinction whole
t book.e
cb. w K
compellingeENeticnA
6op,
eecontendedhanerde
were grounds in the Essays for synodical procedure
should be observed, synodical condemnation—and that it
all they were required by the Upper House to decide upon.we's
As regarded the first Essay, he could say that the omission
of the fall of man, of the incarnation of the Divine Word,
and of the atonement for the sins of man, was such that he
believed no man could draw even in a mere fanciful picture,
for such it was, and he viewed it with the greatest dread.
He was willing to except the second Essay from considers,.
tion, because like the rattlesnake it carried its rattle about
it, and thus vaned the =wary traveller, (Rear, Imo

He felt they were bound to warn the rising generation
against the heresies contained in this book.
At this stage of the proceedings a message was brought
from the Upper House, and the Prolocutor, attended by
his assessors, then left the chamber.
On his return, the PROLOCUTOR said it would be desk-
able if the members of the house would confine their obser-
vations to the narrowest limits. (Hear.)
The Rev. Mr. MASSINGBERD suggested that a represen-
tation should be made to the Upper House, with the view
of taking their opinion on the subject of synodical judg-
ment.

Canon B EST felt the mischievous tendency of the Essays;
but he hoped the house would not be so unjust as to pre-
judge the question.

The Rev. Mr. MAYOW supported the resoluticn, believ.
ing there were good grounds for synodical action.
Archdeacon DENISON then rose to reply on his original

resolution. He said here was a debate of two days on an
amendment, the very first words of which were in the very
terms of the resolution. He respected public opinion, but
he respected God's word more—(hear)--and he thought
that public opinion would characterise his course as the
most fair which could be adopted. He had been told that
morning by a distinguished layman that it was contrary to
all justice and right to condemn men in their absence with-
out hearing them, but if any one of those authors came for-
ward and expressed the slightest contrition, he, who had the
character of a hard and persecuting man, would welcome
them with all his heart. He never in all his life stumbled
on a book of this kind—so illogical and so silly. Could any
clergyman go to his parishioners and say, "This is the first
chapter of Genesis, but it is not what geology teaches ? "
Here they were in the Convocation of Canterbury,
after 160 years, to warn the people against the heresies in
this book. He did not want any German infidelity, which
had found its way there through France, and now came into
this land. He entreated them, as they valued the Church
of England, as they valued -_•he laity, as they valued the
young, to condemn this book, and he blessed God that he
had been the means of bringing this book before the Con-
vocation of Canterbury. He trusted he had said nothing to
offend his loving friends, but let it not be said that they
shirked the question and did nothing for God's glory and
God's honour. He would move the rejection of the amend-
ment.

The Archdeacon of Sarum's amendment was then put and
lost by 29 to 10.
The Dean of ELY then said he would withdraw the amend-
ment whist he had proposed in favour of Dr. Jeremie.

The PROLOCUTOR said that if the Dean of Ely withdrew
his amendment he could not bring it forward again.
The Dean of ELY said he could not, under such circum-
stances, consent to withdraw his amendment. He was
connected with one of the authors of this book, but both
here and in private he expressed his views that it was a
most unwise book, and had a most pernicious tendency.
But it was one thing to consider what was the character of
the book, and another the proper and just way of dealing
with it. He did not wish to be bound up with this book;
he did not like it; and he wished the authors had come
forward and explained what they had written. He wished
to give an answer to a straightforward question in a
straightforward manner, and he must say this question had
not been brought forward in a straightforward manner, for
they were put in their present position by a small number
of the members of the house. He concluded by moving his
amendment.

Archdeacon SANDFORD, in seconding the amendment,
said he felt the full difficulty in which the house was placed.
He admired the noble speech of Archdeacon Denison, who
came down, as he ever did, to this house with the front of
Jove and Ithuriel's lance. He was not prepared to adopt
the amendment of the Archdeacon of Sarum, fur he felt if
they were to pass to synodical judgment they would imperil
the future sittings of this house. He regarded the Essays
as a most perilous book, but they would do well if they
would leave the authors to their consciences and to the
unanimous censure of the episcopal bench. (Hear, hear.)
He believed it would be the kindest thing if they could ex-
tricate the Upper House and themselves from the difficulty
in which they were placed.
The amendment of the Dean of Ely, seconded by the
Archdeacon of Coventry, was then put and lost by 27 as
against 14.

%Professor JEREMIE then proposed his amendment, re-
marking that it had been said they were involving all the
authors of this book in one universal condemnation ; but
though there was a difference between the authors there
was this universal characteristic in the book, that it stripped
it of all revelation.

The Archdeacon of STAFFORD seconded the amendment,
hoping the book would go to that oblivion to which he be-
lieved it would speedily be consigned.
This amendment was also lost by a majority—the num-
bers being 26 to 16.
Canon SELWYN then proposed his amendment, which
was becouded by Canon HEAVYSIDN, and lost by 26 to 13.
The Rev. F. VINCENT proposed as rider to Archdeacon
Denison's resolution, that while the house felt there were
grounds for synodical judgment on the book, they desired
not to be understood to intimate any opinion as to the pro-
priety of proceeding to such judgment.
The amendment not being seconded fell to the ground.
The original resolution, proposed by Archdeacon DENI-
SON, and seconded by Dr. M'CAuL, that there were grounds
for proceeding to synodical judgment, was then put and
carried, the numbers being, for 31, against 8.
The Rev. Mr. MASSINORERD then moved that a humble
address should be presented to their lordships, praying that
this house might proceed rather by a declaration of faith
than by synodical judgment,
The Rev. Mr. MILLS seconded the resolution,
The resolution was at once put, and lost by a large
majority.

Mr. Canon WOODGATE moved his rider to the resolution,
which was seconded by the Rev. Mr. BEST, and lost.

Canon SELWYN, in the absence of Canon Wordsworth,
moved a resolution that an inquiry should be made to the
Upper House whether it wait necessary to obtain the royal
license before proceeding to synodical action, but this reso-
lution was also negatived.
_ _

Dr.IM'CAUL thought this resolution did not represent
the mind of the house. He had always doubted the power
of proceeding to synodical action, and he thought they
would place the Upper House in this position, that it might
compel them to go on, and if not, the Lower House would
be placed in a predicament. He had in his pamphlet ex-
pressed his opinion that there were great difficulties in re-
viving the judicial functions of Convocation,
Archdeacon DENISON—This is really too bad. I rise to
order. This has been put before, and it is too bad that Dr.
M`Caul should propose it when so many members have left
the house, to stultify our decision, (Hear, hear.)
The PROLOCUTOR—If the house desires it I will take
their sense on this point. (dear, hear.) Then I rule the
motion cannot be put.

The Prolocutor was then summoned to the Upper House,
and on his return read the schedule of prorogation, whereby
Convocation stands prorogued to the 9th of July, and at 6
o'clock the house was accordingly prorogued.