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

induce them]
to act with regard to the motion beforr
the
r"
I
house, and from a large experience, declared his cor ction
that the canon ought to be altered in the way pro%) 4iri
d.
'
spoken in favour of the znotion, and the Bisho_
'" -The Bishops of WINCHESTER and GLOCES' - "eal support,
that the canon triptte altered state wolf,
°
The Archbishop A'TANTERBURY , -fi '43 ; haiENßoßwvnicErg
having given a partial
pressed his fear
difficulties...which had been adverterlep. butil hoped it would
remove' some of them.
JO'
t remove all the
tend to
The resolution was then pqr-,04,
without a dissentient. ~ ,
4" the house and carried
The Bishop of OXFORD
hi''
should be reported by uoved. that' the amended canon
House, and that its.on= ,
Grace the President to the Lower
rrence allould be asked.
The motion war "Acu
agreed to.
The Bier MISSIONARY BISHOPS.
had 140,+° .4op of Oxroun hiquired whether any answer
,n received from the officers of the Crown in refer-
eEr to the V uestion as to the consecration of missionary q
~‘ shops in this country.
',= The Archbishop of CANTERBURY said that the question
he had submitted to the law officers of the Crown was,
whether missionary bish,.3ps appointed to exercise episcopal '
functions beyond the limits of her Majesty's dominions
could be lawfully consecrated in this country. The answer
he had received was signed by Sir John Harding, the
Queen's Advocate; Sir Richard Bethel], the Attorney-
General ; and Sir W. Atherton, the Solicitor-Generah It
stated that they were not aware of any statute or rule by
which. the Archbishop of Canterbury or his suffragan
bishops would violate any law by consecrating bishops in
this country who were to exercise their episcopal functions
beyond the limits of her Majesty's dominions, 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 Bishop of OXFORD inquired whether any answer had
been received as to the intention of Parliament relating to
the Supreme Court of Appeal in regard to doctrine?
The Archbishop 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-
preme Court of Appeal, in matters of doctrine and disci-
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 Yen. E. Bickersteth, M.A., Archdeacon of Buckingham,
acted as Prolocutor. There were also present the Hon. and
Rev. D. Pellew, Dean of Norwich ; the Yen. Archdeacon
Hale, London; the Very' Rev. Harvey Goodwin, D.D.,
Dean of Ely ; the Ven. Archdeacon Denison, Lord Alwyne
Compton, the Rev. Sir G. Provost, the Rev. Henry Mac-
kenzie, Archdeacon Sandford (Coventry), Archdeacon
Thorpe, the Rev. Messrs. Ommanney, Vincent, Jebb,
Mildmay, Mayhew, and Glynn.
ESSAYS AND REYIEWS.
On the motion of Dr. JELF, the standing orders were
suspended in order that the house might proceed to address
his Grace the President on the subject.
Dr. JELF said he proposed an address to the Upper House
praying the official attention of his Grace and their Lord-
ships to the volume called. _Essays and Reviews. He pro-
ceeded to say—in addressing myself to this serious task I
feel deep responsibility and an indescribable feeling of pain.
As to the responsibility, it is not merely that I feel that a
very important object has devolved upon very inadequate
hands, but that I am undertaking that which is no proper
act of mine more than ethers, 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 agitation
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, T 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 Soeinians 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 showi their dangerous tendency.
Dr. M'CAUL, 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 doctrines which
were understood to be promulgated by the book in question,
suggested that for convocation to pass a solemn resolution
against the volume would be giving to the opinions it con-
tained an importance to which they were 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 most practical mode of relieving the house from
the difficulty.
Archdeacon GRANT seconded the amendment.
Archdeacon DENISON protested against slurring 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, put 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 t
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 NORWICH could not see how they could pass
any more severe censure upon the book than had been
slready 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. Jelf.
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
pi oceedings should be taken or not. Authoritative decisions
by ecclesiastical tribunals no longer regulated the influence
of publications, as in days past.
Archdeacon MOORE doubted whether, until they had
carefully read the book, and compared the quotations made
by Dr. Jelf 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 passages
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
owhfao
f,
cal s had l
w sh
pe cn
at
Cambridge truly asserted, had
heca givenuss
his
views up
were
ereot prospectsn
accordance with what he would have been called upon to
profeesds.:hadHsh(ethteakpenestoolyf oErdlye)rsielft, oreswhhsiidcherihneghhaids
bee
con-
nexion
nam
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 thos s who heard gini,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 ace 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, lie considered that the proper course to pursue was,
not to adopt Dr. Jelf 's motion, but to pass to the previous,
question, and thus avoid giving any judgment, and, in,
e(ifTveciahtnebdßleecevla. forrAr. theminlg
that
K tEo theNN A subjectl v Ay
supported the motion; and,
after some further discussion, was one which it was un-
aentertain.
Dr. WORDSWORTH moved as a substitution for Dr. Jeff%
motion the following;--" That the clergy of the Lower
House of Convooat lon of the province of Canterbury, having
regard to the unanimous censure which has been already
pronounced and published by the archbishops and bishops
4 Essays and Reviews,' entertain an earnest
of both provinoos en certain opinions contained in a certain
tnuTendder the Divine blessing the faithful zeal of the
Chhoohcp:keistethinsats church may be ( nabled to counteract the pernici-
ous influence of the erroneous opinions contained in the said
vclume."
Archdeacon DENISON 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 eondemning 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 AIUIIDO YOUNG, at
No. 112, Strand, Printer, at Tl 4 Seri Office, No. 112,Strank
in the Precinct of the Savoy. in the County of Middlesex
Weduesday, February 27, 1861,