give an opinion. I suppose I shall not have another opportunity during the present Convocation to say how much I deplore the unfortunate position we are placed in, of having to discuss on almost no notice at all so important a matter. I shall give my vote for the motion.

CANON HAWKINS-In justice to myself I should like to say a few words on this matter. I am a young member of this house, though an old man, and I must say I think it would be better if we had notice of the particular subjects to be brought on. At the same time I cannot agree with the Dean of Westminster that it is necessary to go de novo into the entire subject. I would not venture to give a vote if I were supposed to give it on a full knowledge and memory of the judgment of the Bishop of Capetown or of the book of Bishop Colenso, which I have not read so as to give a judicial opinion upon it. At the same time, in coming to our judgment we must take a great deal from authority, and rest satisfied that the two Houses of Convocation have gone into the question and found Bishop Colenso guilty of false doctrine, and their judgment must go for something. I also know that another Bishop, of an entirely different theological school from the Bishop of Capetown, and as earnest in his view, has published his opinion, approving of the course which the Bishop of Capetown has taken. Besides, it was not a judgment merely of the Bishop of Capetown, but of him and his three Suffragans sitting in Synod together. It is not to be supposed if we adjourn this matter till to-morrow that we should by that time have gone through these four volumes; and therefore on the general impression on our minds I think we may fairly come to a conclusion now. In the whole province of South Africa it is a notorious fact that the clergy almost to a man view the doctrine of Bishop Colenso as heretical, and that his own clergy have one and all repudiated his authority. I believe that the Bishop of Capetown is so stern an administrator of justice at times that some allowance might be made; but I believe that the members of the Church, lay and clerical, without regard to what is called party at home-I mean the High Church and Low Church party, taking different views as to his general administration of his office, have the same view that he has as to the heresy that he condemned, and I do not think Bishop Colenso himself would say that the doctrines he now holds are those in which he was brought up. Well, then, I think we can have no difficulty in saying to the Bishop of Capetown, "You have acted a noble part, you have had the courage to stand by the Gospel, and we thank you."

The DEAN OF WESTMINSTER-I agree that we should not gain in the present stage of our sessions by having more time to discuss this question, which, therefore, ought not to have been proposed to us at all. I merely worded my amendment in this form in deference to the Prolocutor, and I should be very willing to withdraw it altogether. But I was glad to make an amendment in order to reserve to myself the right of saying a word in reply. I wish just to notice one or two of the topics which I was unable to touch upon before. With regard to what the Archdeacon of Taunton has put in his good-humoured

town and Natal. S way as to the impropriety of reopening these questions, I cannot see why new members coming here should be precluded from taking any new view of what is being done in this house now or at any future time. Are we who are new members, and who have never heard the questions discussed in this house-are we to be precluded from reconsidering them because by the nature of things we could not be present at the time? Is this house to be pledged once for all to its former conclusions, and to be debarred from the new thoughts of each succeeding change of its members in each succeeding generation? I, for one, am disposed to take a much more favourable view of Bishop Burnet's book on the Thirty-nine Articles than was taken by this house 170 years ago, and is it to be supposed that because of that former decision I am not at liberty to take different views with regard to Bishop Burnet's and other books from that which was taken a century or more ago? Besides, as the Principal of Jesus says, although Convocation produced a report which dealt with one or two of the books of the Bishop of Natal some four years ago, yet that report does not enter into all the books that have come under the consideration of the Bishop of Capetown, for whose course of proceeding upon which we in this address compliment him. Again, the elaborate judgments and the arguments of Mr. Douglas and Bishop Gray have not been discussed at all in Convocation, and this house has the most imperfect knowledge of what took place upon the trial. I have asked questions of the house on this head and have not received any answer. I have asked as to certain theological doctrine, pronounced upon by the Bishop of Capetown, as for instance the salvation of good heathens, and no one has been able to give me an answer yes or no, whether that doctrine was pronounced by the Bishop of Capetown to be heretical or not. Again, the judgment of the Privy Council, with regard to the jurisdiction of Colonial Bishops, has never been discussed in this house at all. Yet the address calls the Bishop of Capetown Metropolitan of South Africa, and compliments him on the general proceedings in the trial. That is a question which has never been discussed since I have been a member of this house, and could not have been discussed before, as the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council did not pronounce its judgment till the beginning of this year. Even, therefore, taking the case of the older members of this house, it is unreasonable to say that all these questions are closed because upon a small part of them a report was framed some years ago. There is, as Mr. Mayow justly observed, another point in which some confusion prevails-from mixing up the question of the advantage of free inquiry with the lawfulness of prosecuting such inquiry within the Church of England. There is, no doubt, a close connection between the two; but they can be considered separately, and at present it is only the second with which we are engaged. The question proposed to us in this address is whether it is lawful for a Bishop or clergyman of the Church of England to hold such and such doctrines. By concurring in this address, the two Houses of Convocation will express concurrence in the following propositions first, that it is unlawful for a clergyman or a Bishop of the Church of England to deny the Mosaic origin of the Pentateuch, or

It seems to

town and Natal. any portion of it; secondly, that it is unlawful for a clergyman or a Bishop of the Church of England to hold the doctrine St. Gregory of Nyssa held respecting future punishment; thirdly, that it is unlawful to hold with St. Anselm, Law, and Alexander Knox, as to the doctrine of the Atonement; fourthly-and here I am much obliged to the Archdeacon of Taunton for having called my attention to one of the counts against the Bishop of Natal, which, in the sudden emergence of this address, I had forgotten to notice, and which, delicate and difficult as it is, we cannot possibly overlook on this occasion-that it is unlawful to hold the doctrine which Jeremy Taylor held of the limited character of the human knowledge of our Blessed Lord. The REV. G. E. GILLETT-Is not this out of order? me that it is going through the whole question over again. The DEAN OF WESTMINSTER-I am showing that all these things should be considered. The Bishop of Capetown is here praised absolutely, immensely, and entirely for what he has done, and the Bishop of Natal is condemned as absolutely and unreservedly for what he has done, and it therefore becomes necessary for us to know what the Bishop of Capetown has condemned in his judgment. The Bishop of St. David's, in the Charge in which he condemns the report presented from this house, deals in the most lucid and at the same time in the most reverential manner with this whole question of the limited nature of the human knowledge of our Blessed Lord, and he points out clearly that Jeremy Taylor implied, if he did not actually express, the same view on this subject that has been condemned by the Bishop of Capetown, and in the most impressive language deprecates the pronouncement of any formal dogma on this intricate question. To all these four points, perhaps to many more, Convocation pledges itself by agreeing to this address. I have not entered into the theological merits of the case at all. I am not arguing whether Jeremy Taylor, St. Gregory, St. Anselm, St. Chrysostom, and the Bishop of Natal were right or wrong, but I say you are bound to take into your mind that these are disputed questions on which the Bishops of Natal and Capetown have taken different views, and on which the Bishop of Capetown has laid down in the most positive manner that the view held by the Bishop of Natal and by those and many other eminent divines is incompatible with any position in the Church of England. In this late stage of our session-called upon thus suddenly-in this thinly attended meeting-without the judgment of the Bishop of Capetown before us-it is useless to urge you to go further into the case; and I therefore withdraw the amendment, and leave the general question of receiving or refusing to receive this address to be voted on its own merits.

The amendment was accordingly by the leave of the house withdrawn.

The PROLOCUTOR then put to the house the original motion, which, upon a show of hands having been called for, was carried; the numbers in its favour being 11; against it, 5;

After which the PROLOCUTOR read the schedule prorouging the house to the following day.

Canons.

SESSION LXXXVIII.-Thursday, June 29, 1865.

UPPER HOUSE.

The house met at four o'clock. HIS GRACE THE ARCHBISHOP presided. Prayers were read.

THE SUBSCRIPTION CANONS.

The BISHOP OF OXFORD-There is one point on which the Convocation of this province has not yet expressed its concurrence with that which is understood to be the intention of the Legislature in an alteration to be made in the rubric of the Book of Common Prayer. It will be in your Grace's recollection, having taken part in the recommendation, that the Royal Commissioners recommended that the oaths taken in the consecration of Bishops and ordaining of Priests and Deacons should, for the greater solemnity of the service, be taken the day preceding, or some time preceding the ordination, and not in the course of the ordination or consecration itself, in the midst of the solemn rites of religious service. It seems to me, and I hope it will also appear to my right rev. brethren, and to the clergy of the Lower House, that that was a wise and proper provision, and, being so, I trust it may be carried into effect by the bill which at this moment is pending, though not yet passed. I would therefore suggest that we agree to an address, praying her Majesty to take such order as to her Majesty may seem meet for carrying out that recommendation of the Royal Commission. By that means the clergy will be placed in their proper position as acquiescing entirely and co-operating with the Legislature in altering a rubric of the Prayer-book. I think it is very important that in such an alteration both houses should concur. I therefore propose an address to her Majesty with this view. The right rev. prelate then moved an address in the following terms:

May it please your Majesty-We, your Majesty's loyal subjects, the Archbishop, Bishops, and [leaving a blank for "clergy"] of the province of Canterbury, in Convocation under your Majesty's writ of summons lawfully assembled, humbly pray your Majesty to be graciously pleased to take such order as to your Majesty may seem meet for giving legal sanction to the recommendation by certain Commissioners appointed by your Majesty to consider and report on the oaths, subscriptions, and declarations to be taken, subscribed, and made by the clergy, in which they advise that a certain oath now appointed to be taken in the course of the services for the consecration of Bishops and the ordering of the Priests and Deacons respectively, or the oaths which may be appointed to be taken instead of them, may be taken at some time before and not during the said service.

I propose that this address be agreed to and transmitted to the Lower House for their agreement.

The BISHOP OF LLANDAFF-I second the motion.

Motion put and agreed to.

E

&c., Canons.

The address was transmitted to the Lower House for their concurrence.

The PROLOCUTOR and his Assessors soon afterwards attended and said-I have to express the concurrence of the Lower House in the Address which your lordships have proposed. I am also requested to submit the following resolutions to the Upper House:

Session Wednesday, 28th June, 1865.-The Lower House concurs with the Upper House in the proposed address to the Lord Bishop of Capetown and the Bishops who assembled with him to try, under the powers purported to be conveyed by letters patent granted by the Crown, a Bishop of this province accused before them of heresy, communicated to this house during the present session.

Session Thursday, 29th June, 1865.-Resolutions to be communicated to the Upper House. The Lower House desires to express its hearty acceptance of a bill passed by both Houses of Parliament, and now waiting the Royal Assent, providing for the removal of the oath touching the Queen's supremacy from the body of the Ordination and Consecration Services, together with its thanks to the Legislature for a measure very agreeable to the Church. The Lower House respectfully requests the Upper House to take such measures as to it may seem fit for expressing the concurrence of the Synod of the Province of Canterbury in the measures above mentioned.

THE CANONS 29TH, 36тн, 37TH, 38TH, AND 40TH.

HIS GRACE THE PRESIDENT informed his right reverend brethren the Prelates present that he had given directions to have the new 29th Canon, and the altered and amended 36th, 37th, 38th, and 40th Canons, as agreed to by both houses at the last session of Convocation, engrossed and prepared for the signatures of the members of Convocation, and the same had been engrossed on parchment, and were now ready for publication. His Grace the President then directed the Prolocutor to be informed that the Upper House were prepared to make and publish the aforesaid canons, and that his Grace had summoned the Prolocutor, with the whole of the Lower House, to attend the Upper House in the Board-room aforesaid.

The said PROLOCUTOR and the clergy of the Lower House having come up and appeared before his Grace the President, his Grace then informed both Houses of Convocation that the new 29th Canon and the altered and amended 36th, 37th, 38th, and 40th Canons were ready for signature and publication, and his said Grace being then seated in the said tribunal or seat of judgment, the said right rev. the Prelates seated on the right side of his Grace, and the Prolocutor and clergy of the Lower House standing on the left side, his Grace the President then and there, to wit, in the said Board-room, read and published the said 29th Canon, and also the said 36th, 37th, 38th, and 40th of the said canons so as aforesaid altered and amended, both in English and Latin.

His said Grace and the Prolocutor holding the parchment on which the said canons were engrossed severally with their right hands, his Grace read the same in the presence of the aforesaid right rev. the Prelates and the clergy of the Lower House, and having so read and published the said canons severally and respectively, his Grace then and there signed the same respectively, and the said right rev. the Prelates also signed the same, as did the aforesaid Prolocutor and