The Dorset County Express and Agricultural Gazette.
Dorchester, Dorset, England, 1876-03-28 00:00:00

Conesponbnut.

THE PERSONALTY OF THE DEVIL
ro the Editor.
.. ~..

Sir,—There are two points in Mr. Klemborowski's
letter which call for a word of reply. A third might
be added if I were anxious to dwell on the "had
humour" which it breathes, in respect of which it is
enough to say that if I have lost what charity and
mental equanimity I
_possessed, Mr. Klamborowdki
has had some little difficulty in retaining his. How
easy it would be to retort on him, that my criticism of
his church, which does not happen to he his church in
particular, is " the one great bogey which constantly
year after year puts to flight whatever charity or
serenity of mind Air. Klamborowski may possess."
lint, sir, it is to no purpose to dwell on such matters.
Let ma tell your correspondent that if he cannot, like
• man and a Christian, endure the rublic criticism
which the events of his church elicit, he ought to hold his
tongue and attend to those duties which more imme-
diately concern him and his parishioners. I can only
tell him plainly enough that such ill-natured exhibi-
tions neither do him nor his church any good, but
Perhaps a good deal of harm. The homily which he
addresses to me would of CALrse be equally suitable to
the gentlemen of the Press, who have announced the
sentiments which I have already quoted, and to
which it would be easy to add. But when Mr.
Klamboroweki refess us to the judgment of the Lord
Chancellor and tells us that he means to abide by it,
he forgets that other people, the editor of the Daily
Neios included, have read that verdict as well as he,
and it is a little presumptuous, to say the least of it, I
for him to suppose that of all its readers, he alone has
clearly understood its meaning.
Mr. Klamborowski is not destitute of mental acute- ,1
ness, but I think that when he detects his mistake in
this matter, he will feel that he had rather missed the
mark and made himielf alittleridiculous. Thequestion '
is not what is the printed decision of the Lord Chancellor;
that is before us all; the question is what does the
decision involve! And this is what the Pall-Mall
aquae says about it, which if it does not satisfy Mr.
Klamborowski may satisfy less partial readers
"That law," viz., of the Church's doctrine and its
authority to enforce it, as illustrated by the recent
judgment, is that no minister of the Anghcan Church,
be he bishop, priest, or deacon, has the right to ques-
tion any parishioner or intending communicant Its to
his acceptance of any dogma whatever. The clergy-
man may hold his own views, but the law says that
he shall not take advantage of his position to enforce
them on his flock. . . . If he obtains any state-
ment of opinion which he thinks heretical, he is not at
liberty to make use of such statement in order to
deprive the utterer of any religions ministration he
may ask." But this of course will be regarded as an
editorial inaccuracy similar to that of the Express, and
the editor of the Pall-Mail Gazette, as well as of the
Express, must bow to the superior reading and inter-
pretation of the curate of Tincleton I
As to the case of the Rev. Mr. Stewart, we are told
by Mr. Klamborowski that he is awaiting his trial at
the admiral Mina, Londonderry, for refusing to admit
one of his members to the Holy Communion, on the
ground that he had committed perjury. But does not
A. Klamborowski see the absurdity of his position
Mr. Stewart is virtually arraigned for defamation of
character, and it must be a matter of utter indiffer-
ence as to what the law of his church is touching
doctrine or Communion. The question is whether
Mr. Stewart was jturtified in imputing any such crime
'to his member. It is purely a civil action, which all
Free Churches would admit to be strictly within the
province of the magistrate. The question in dispute
In the case of Mr. Jenkins, however, is not a question
of the injury of character and reputation, but simply
and solely of doctrinal belief and consequent religious
privilege, which questions, in Free Churches. are
strictly confined to their own jurisdiction, and in no
sense whatever subject to the jurisdiction or superior
ruling of the civil Court. Free Churches, as against
the "Establishment," have this as their distinctive
privilege for which they have paid dearly, but which
they think is worth all the price. We think that there
are not • few in the "Establishment' who are begin-
ning t be of our olinin, and who are earnestly con-
sidering whether at such a price as we have paid, they
had not better purchase their liberty and in.lependence
too. Mr. Klaniborowski, with greater self-assertive-
need than knowledge, affirms the same freedom for his
Church as belongs to the Free Churches. All I can
say is that he is labouring under a strange hallucin-
ation, which passing events might well correct
I am, Sir, yours, &c.,
THOS. NEAVF.

Dorchester, March 23rd, 1876.
P.S. —ln further support of the above position it
may be remarked that Archdeacon Denison, the day
following the decision of the " Privy Council '
presented a gravamen in convocation protesting against
it on the ground that "the judgment dishonoured God,
His Word, and His church here in England.' Of
course Mr. Klamborowski will only see in this a further
carping against the ehurch by the "fiery Archdeacon.