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 house do further recommend that the synodi-
cal judgment be confined 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 lost :—" 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 bas alreadt
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 mover" That the Lower House at the
aanie urno wcho to submit tor the consmeration 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
ccnsideration 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-
Niews,' 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 THORP—" To add at the same time, this
house represents to the Upper House their belief that it is
not advisable to exorcise 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, they 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 condemnd 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. Ho 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
.Totwe: ttf ;
,Dittronheuho: from
se
monthi they would
peminent
detach
masterchthes by
ym-
F.kthis proceeding ? On the contrary, he believed the result
would be to knit them together more closely, and increase
his influence tenfold. (Hear, hear.) For the 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
sufficienily 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
similar
House to consider. -.:: The Upper House had asked their
toopitnionupon one matter, and they had no right gratuitously
essayists, but the effect judgment
an opinion upon another. The effect of the solemn
of that house would be to condemn not only this
church. T46.1;°
book,
.but
tothalolseowpihnlioohnsthwarit written beeofnotraeihnaendd,
andor thheusreafter
do its duty in the
pro-
tect the reli • the country and the interests of the
should think, not of the effect upon the
their
country and those
essay
hofththae neglect of owfotuthadt
doubtless
eletsos
who
might have upon the youth of the
church. The conmdeaeminteteritoawrtoahlionweere in communion with the
weight, but those who opposed
carry with it great
this motion conveyed by
words
condemna-
tion than the terms of the proseot intion a stronger
that opportunities should be givenfoer. It had been said
explanation, but no
explanation could do away with the pernicious taint which
pervaded the whole book.
The Rev. J. C. KENNAWAY supported the motion, draw-
ing a distinction between "the grounds of proceeding" and
'reasons compelling to proceed." He contended
there
w grounds in the Essays for synodical procedur htoht.e
w !should be observed, synodical condemnation—and that Wit
all they were required by the Upper House to decide upon.
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 consider*.
tion, because like the rattlesnake it carried its rattle about
it, and t 431114 warned the uuwary traveller. (Hear, War.)