seems to show in what degree of respect the convocation holds the opinion of men learned in the law, however eminent, or the wishes of her majesty's government, however clearly expressed. The convocation entertain a scheme for consecrating missionary bishops for places beyond the limits of our own colonial empire. The archbishop of Canterbury submitted, at the request of convocation, the question to the law officers of the Crown, namely, "Whether missionary bishops 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 Bethell, the attorney-general; and Sir W. Atherton, the solicitor-general. 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." An answer so courteously, and yet so firmly given, would appear to have deserved some weight. The bishop of Gloucester and Bristol and the bishop. of Norwich thought so; but the bishop of Oxford, making, as it seems from the report of his speech, no allusion whatever to the strongly-expressed wishes of the government, carried a resolution which, in point of fact, expresses the intention of convocation to force on the subject, whether the government approve or not. "The bishop of Oxford rose to move the appointment of a joint committee of both houses of convocation for the purpose of drawing up an address to his grace the president, praying him to put himself in communication with the various metropolitan bishops in the colonies as to the regulations which should govern the relations of missionary bishops to the home and colonial church."

The bishop of Norwich moved an amendment, expressing an earnest desire that no action might be taken until further communication had been had with the bishops abroad. A moderate demand, but even this was lost. The convocation had now sat two forenoons: on the first, they appear to have placed themselves in opposition to the law. On the second, they assume an attitude of defiance against her Majesty's legal advisers and the government.

We cannot dismiss this branch of the subject without expressing our deep regret that the bishop of Oxford should, in convocation, have needlessly raked up the old story about the Irish

articles of 1615. We have, however, no doubt that some leading member of the church in Ireland will expose the extraordinary notions of the bishop of Oxford upon that point: in fact, the Dublin articles of 1615 were not articles of communion, much less articles of faith (3 Stephens, M.S. Irish Prayer Book, xlii.)

We turn with more satisfaction to another subject: the subject of the "Essays and Reviews." They have now gained a notoriety of shame and infamy, and a discussion arose on this fresh danger to the church. It was introduced by the bishop of Oxford; and we pay his lordship no reluctant tribute when we say, that he spoke in a manner worthy of the occasion. The bench of bishops, as our readers know, had already given, through the archbishop of Canterbury, their condemnation of the Essays in the most decided manner. We are happy now to add, that the archbishops of Armagh and Dublin have added a protest of their own. Few will care to charge the venerable primate of Ireland with rashness, or Dr. Whately with a disposition to crush freedom of thought. Yet their censure is even stronger than that expressed by the archbishop of Canterbury. We are anticipating the course of events, as the Irish protest was not issued till a few days after the debate in the convocation, and therefore could not have influenced its proceedings. Their graces address the bishops of their provinces: "Our attention," say they, "has been called to a protest which has been issued by the prelates in England, in reference to a publication, entitled, 'Essays and Reviews,' the production of professed members, most of them clergymen, of our church, and yet setting forth views manifestly at variance with its principles. We cannot doubt your strong disapprobation of the disingenuousness of such conduct. Even supposing the doctrines of our church to be as unsound as we firmly believe them to be the reverse, still it is directly opposed to the most obvious principles of morality for persons to continue professed members of the church, and perhaps enjoying the emoluments, while assailing those doctrines." This is a fair statement of the whole question. It is a dishonest act, base and cowardly; and would still be so, as their graces say, were the doctrines of our church as false as we believe them to be true. It is no dubious or difficult point to ascertain whether the principles advanced by the essayists are consistent with the Bible. It is a mere question of plain common sense, on which we do not believe the man lives who, reverencing the Bible as God's revelation, and having read the Essays, can entertain a doubt. We therefore repeat the expression of gratitude which we made a month ago to the English (and now, too, to the Irish) prelates, for the promptness of their censure. If this be called a prejudging of the

question, we reply, it is a question which ought to be prejudged. To pretend to doubt, to affect to hesitate, because no tribunal has yet sat, and no official condemnation been pronounced, would in us be consummate hypocrisy. Our faith, as Christians, does not stand upon the decision of any tribunal under heaven, civil or ecclesiastical. No condemnation of the Essays can, in the slightest degree, influence the judgment the whole church of Christ has already formed upon them. No verdict of acquittal can mitigate its hostility. The right reverend bench are set for the defence of the gospel; they are expressly bound to drive away erroneous and strange doctrines; and, so far, in the issuing of these two letters, they have merely executed their commission. As trustees for the church of England, entrusted with paternal authority, it seems to us they had no alternative. Shall a parent, if he detects his son in lying or some gross transgression, be forbidden at once to express his high displeasure? Must he be compelled to wait, to affect a calm indifference, and allow the example to taint each younger member of the family, and the offence to pass unnoticed until he has determined whether the offence had any mitigating circumstances, and what punishment it is proper to inflict? A tribunal there ought to be; not, however, to determine whether the Seven Essays are what Christian ministers may write without impiety-an impiety not far from that open scorn of revelation for which blasphemy is the usual designation-but simply whether the writers of them can be allowed to retain their honours and emoluments within the church of England. For, as to the principles avowed in the Essays and Reviews, we have not now to set ourselves to examine their truth or falsehood; we know them to be false. They are the old objections, the old scoffs, the old airs of lordly superiority, accommodated to the nineteenth century. And, to quote a fine sentence from Robert Hall, "the friends of Christianity have been too long in possession of the estate to be obliged to wrangle with every sophist as to the validity of the title."

The Wesleyan conference sits with closed doors; it allows no reporters to be present. It gives the public none of its debates, and it is the only synod which has been able to maintain its ground in England since the reformation. If the convocation becomes permanent, it will soon be driven to follow the example; for a debate such as that in the upper house on the Seven Essays, will not often be repeated with impunity. We cannot describe the painful impression already produced throughout the country by the apologetic tone of the bishop of London; or the astonishment with which orthodox Christians within the united church, and without her pale, have read the declaration of the bishop of Lincoln, that "he had recently

admitted one of the writers, the Rev. Mark Pattison, B.D., to the rectorship of a college at Oxford. He had no power to refuse, as he was only acting ministerially; but if he had plenary power, he should not have thought it necessary to deny him admission in consequence of the essay he had written." It is natural that the bishop of London should wish to protect his friends, and he intimates that he is on terms of personal friendship with several of the writers, and that "he entertains for them the very liveliest regard." But we cannot understand on what ground his lordship proceeds, when he utters such sentiments as those which follow :

"Separating, as he trusted he should always be able to do, the individual from his opinions, hoping, perhaps, against hope, that the individual might be recovered, however far he may have gone astray, he should indeed rejoice if an opportunity were afforded to all the writers of the Essays to make a public declaration of their belief in the great doctrines of Christianity. One of the writers, whose essay had been held to be most objectionable, had been generally supposed to take the form of putting forth the opinions of another rather than his own. He should be delighted to hear, greatly as it would impair his estimate of the judgment of that gentleman, that he did not himself hold what he wished to exhibit as the sentiments of another; and, with regard to all, he should be truly pleased if they could make such a public profession as that to which he had referred. In such a case, he should not allow himself to doubt their honesty, or trouble himself about their consistency."

His lordship, no doubt, (it is unnecessary to add the remark,) expressed his disapprobation of the essays very strongly; but this unwise attempt to palliate the moral offence of the writers is producing the most painful consequences. It signifies nothing when a man rushes with a firebrand in his hand amongst a hapless crowd, and dashes it in their faces, or throws its sparks into their barns and rick-yards, what particular cause has occasioned his insanity. Nor, as far as the consequences to others are affected, is it important to know whether he be merely insane or merely wicked. When placed on his trial his counsel may endeavour, if he please, to persuade the jury that he was neither the one nor the other. He would have a very ancient precedent in his favour for arguing that he was only a fool, and did it in mere sport. The bishop of London may be allowed, in private, to deplore the follies of his friends, and extenuate, if he can, their wickedness; but, surely, in his place in convocation, his duty to the church of Christ should supersede all private considerations. The apology which he suggests would, in our opinion, be more disgraceful to the writers; it would certainly be more nauseous to the public than the careless and impudent effrontery they have themselves assumed. assumed. Upright men of all parties-high

churchmen and low churchmen, Roman Catholics, Unitarians, unbelievers, the representatives of every shade of opinionconcur in this, that, while they remain with the church of England, and share her honours and endowments, they are dishonest men; and it is painful indeed to know that the bishop of London would retain them in the bosom, some of them in the ministry, of the national church upon any other terms than a public recantation of their errors, and a penitential acknowledgment of their sin. Well did the bishop of Oxford speak when he

"Ventured to say that few things could be more disastrous than that it should be supposed that any of the bishops thought it would be the slightest removal of objection to this volume if the writers, one and all, made a most solemn asseveration of holding the truth. The more people asserted that they held all the truth, and yet put openly forward what denied that truth, was, in his judgment, incompatible with all true belief in our Lord and Saviour, and rendered it the more dangerous."

With regard to Mr. Mark Pattison, the new rector of Lincoln College, we have made the only apology for him which his case admits, in our review of the Essays in June last. On referring to it, we find that it very much resembles that which Addison tells us the kind-hearted country clergyman made for the sick infidel, who thought his last hour was come, and deplored the extensive mischief done by his pernicious writings. "Make yourself quite easy, sir," said the benevolent old clergyman, "for I can assure you that your writings are so intolerably stupid, that no one ever reads them." Of Mr. Pattison, we find we wrote thus :

"The next essay, by Mr. Pattison, is the least effective and most perplexing paper of the seven. It professes to describe the tendencies of religious thought in England in 1688-1750.' It is prosy and dreary, and necessarily inconclusive. There is considerable difficulty in discovering or understanding the writer's drift or aim. On the whole, we deem the paper so ineffective and innoxious, as not to require any separate or detailed examination."-Christian Observer, June, 1860.

But this is not enough. The bishop of Exeter has put the matter in its proper light, in his recent letter to Dr. Temple, when he says :—

"I avow that I hold every one of the seven... alike responsible for the several acts of every individual among them, in executing their avowed common purpose. This judgment," his lordship adds, "might, indeed, have been qualified in favour of any one of the seven who, on seeing the extravagantly vicious manner in which some of his associates had performed their part, had openly declared his disgust and abhorrence of such unfaithfulness, and had withdrawn his name from the number."