nly had to do with
certain extracts which had been presented. Among these was one adduced
in support of a charge against Mr. Wilson--that he denied the doctrine
of eternal punishment. On this the court decided that it did "not find
in the formularies of the English Church any such distinct declaration
upon the subject as to require it to punish the expression of a hope
by a clergyman that even the ultimate pardon of the wicked who are
condemned in the day of judgment may be consistent with the will of
Almighty God." While the archbishops dissented from this judgment,
Bishop Tait united in it with the lord chancellor and the lay judges.

And now the panic broke out more severely than ever. Confusion became
worse confounded. The earnest-minded insisted that the tribunal had
virtually approved Essays and Reviews; the cynical remarked that it had
"dismissed hell with costs." An alliance was made at once between
the more zealous High and Low Church men, and Oxford became its
headquarters: Dr. Pusey and Archdeacon Denison were among the leaders,
and an impassioned declaration was posted to every clergyman in England
and Ireland, with a letter begging him, "for the love of God," to sign
it. Thus it was that in a very short time eleven thousand signatures
were obtained. Besides this, deputations claiming to represent one
hundred and thirty-seven thousand laymen waited on the archbishops
to thank them for dissenting from the judgment. The Convocation of
Canterbury also plunged into the fray, Bishop Wilberforce being the
champion of the older orthodoxy, and Bishop Tait of the new. Caustic
was the speech made by Bishop Thirlwall, in which he declared that he
considered the eleven thousand names, headed by that of Pusey, attached
to the Oxford declaration "in the light of a row of figures preceded
by a decimal point, so that, however far the series may be advanced, it
never can rise to the value of a single unit."

In spite of all that could be done, the act of condemnation was carried
in Convocation.

The last main echo of this whole struggle against the newer mode of
interpretation was heard when the chancellor, referring to the matter
in the House of Lords, characterized the ecclesiastical act as "simply a
series of well-lubricated terms--a sentence so oily and saponaceous that
no one can grasp it; like an eel, it slips through your fingers, and is
simply nothing."

The word "saponaceous" necessarily elicited a bitter retort