The Sun.
London, England, 1849-12-11 00:00:00

fortuity in the services of the Church of England ? That
wag stated in its very preamble. Now, let their Lord.
ships consider whether the Book of Common
,Prayer
and the administration of the Sacraments laid down any
doctrine of the Church of England. rho sole and only
purpose of this statute was to introduce one common
order of service in the Church throughout the whole
kieeeloni. Trio sth and 6th Edward VI., cap. 1,
alas an Act for providing for the uniformity ot ser-
vice in the Sacraments throughout Eng!and and Wales.
Immediately after that ALL came in Queen Mary, and
with her coming to the throne the Prayer-book and all
the Acts relating to it were swept away. On the acces-
sion of Queen Elizsbethl there was restored the Act for
the uniformity of Common Prayer and the administration
of the Sacraments. This Act revived the statute of
Edward VI., with several additions'. It could never
have been the intention of Queen Elizabeth's Act to
alaa the Articles of the Church of England, for
it absolutely gale the Queen the power to
add new formularies to those already in existence.
The 13th and 14th Charles 11., c. 30, followed,
which ma le further provision for the uniformity of
Common Prayer and service and the administration of
the Sacraments, and introduced several modifications
into the Book of Common Prayer. Now he submitted,
from a view of those statutes, that it was never iu con-
tetnplation to change the doctrine of the Church of
Eaglsnd, except by that passed in Queen Mary's time.
If their Lordships took this case upon the Articles, upon
the Canons, or upon the Prayer-book, they would find
that the Articles were the code of faith, and
the Prayer-book the code of devotion. The
Articles were certain deductions from Scripture,
and the Prayer- book was intended to reduce
those deductions into devotional practice. He (Mr.
Turner) contended that the law of the country warranted
him in maintaining the doctrine that their Lordships were
not to collect the doctrines of the Church of England
from the expressions contained iu the devotional services
Inserted in the Prayer-book. He submitted that
he had satisfactorily shown that the doctrine of
the Church of England was from the Articles,
and the devotion from the Prayer-book. Now,
to what extent had the Church of England declared
her views on the subject of baptism? The doctrine of
the Church of Rome on the subject of baptism was set-
tled in the Council of Trent before the preparation of
the Articles in 1532. In the Church of Rome in 1547 the
doctrine of euchis operatem, which had been vexed in
that Chuch fur centuries, was first and finally settled,
and by that doctrine it was held that the sacrament of
baptism was efficacious whether it was received
rightly or not; whereas the 27th Article of the
Church of England negatived that proposition. That
article said, " Baptism is not only a sign of pro-
fession and marking of difference, whereby Christians
are discerned from others, but it is also a sign of regene-
ration or new birth, whereby, as by an instrument, they
that receive baptism rightly are engrafted into the
Church." He had thus proved what the Articles of the
Church of England had negatived. He would proceed
to show what they affirmed. The 29th Article said that
baptismwas " a sign of regeneration or new birth."
That Article said that " baptism is not only a sign
of profession, and a marking of difference, whereby
Christian men are discerned from others, Lut it is also
11 sign of regeneration or new birth." And what were
its effects? Why, these, that baptism "is also a sign of
regeneration or new birth, whereby, as by an instru-
Meet, they that receive baptism rightly are grafted into
the Church, promises of the forgiveness of sins are
thereby signed and sealed, faith is confirmed, and grace
la increased by virtue of prayer." When he looked
at the construction of this Article, he could
not help concluding from it that the sign and the in-
terest conveyed by the sign were purposely separated
tor the purpose of introducing into the conveyance the
Words as to the baptism being " rightly received."
The Leained Counsel had not concluded his argument
When we went to press.

CHANCERY.—(THIS DAY.)
„, Tho LORD CHANCELLOR sat in his court in the Old
441, Lincoln's Inn, and heard appeal motions to-day.

LASSENCE V. TIERNEY.—JUDGMENT.
The LORD CHANCELLOR gave his judgment partly
Yesterday in this case, w hich came before him upon
I,q)Peal from the decision of the Vice-Chancellor Wigram.
2-2 be question in the case was as to the construct►on of
the will of Matthew Cannon, of West-end, Hampstead,
As Court below held that Mr. Cannon, in conseqm,nce
!lithe uncirtainty of the expressions in his will died
latptate, and from that decision the parties appealed to
this branch of the Court. His Loreship this morning
gave his final judgment, dismissing the appeal.—Judg-
ment affirmed.
TUE SHREWSBURY AND CHESTER RAILWAY COMPANY V.

TIE LONDON AND NORTH-WESTERN RAILWAY Curti:
PANT ♦ND OTHERS.
The arguments in this part• heard case were resumed
this morning. The case came before his Lordship upon
an appeal motion from the judgment of the Vice• Cha-
ncellor Knight Bruce, granting an injunction restraining
the defendautsifrom interfering with the plaintiffs' sta-
tion accommodation at the joint station at Chester.
There was a cross-appeal motion for the reversal of that
part of his Honour's order which refused the admission
of the omnibussea connected with the plaintiffs' line into
the enclosure of the station.
Mr. Molina, with whom was Mr. R. Gifford, were
heard yesterday in support of the appeal, and Mr.
Bothell was heard against it on behalf of the North
Western Company.
Mr. Bacon and Mr. Follett followed on the same side
to-day.
Mr. J. Parke, Mr. Willeoek, and Mr. Glasse are also
counsel in the (Ate for other parties.
The further arguments occupied the Court the
whole day.

ROLLS' COURT.-(THIS DAY.)
The Master of the Rolls did not sit in his Court, in
the Rolls' Yard, to-day, having to attend the Judicial
Committee of the Privy Council, to hear the important
taPPeal of " Gorham v. the Bishop of Exeter."