The Sun.
London, England, 1856-10-23 00:00:00

)f scientific navigation 'to direct you. At the annual dinner
if the Society of Arts in the Crystal Palace last Midsum-
mer, our vice-president, Lord Ashburton, in his address
from the chair, wisely and well observed :—" Let us but
remember what we are about —we are fitting out man
for the struggles of life; we are not fitting up a store-
house for the use of a philosopher. Man goes forth into
the world as a soldier goes forth into 3 campaign. His
wants are boundless, his means of carriage are small. Can
any service be greater than that of planning out and as-
sorting his pack of knowledge, rejecting all that shall cum-
ber his movements, selecting all that may afford materials-
for the work he has to do ? Surely there is no more urgent
task for us to perform than that we should employ our
wisest heads to consider man's powers—to consider man's
necessities—to consider man's position in relation to his
Maker, his daty to God, to himself, and to his neighbour,
and then decide upon what principle this small pack of
knowledge shall be composed which be can advantageously
bear with him into life. This is the question of questions
—a question that demands for its solution the highest
qualification of the priest and the 'philosopher, and we
cave the question to be decided by the unlettered me.
chanic. Man's wants are boundless—his means of carriage
are small; life is short—school ime still shorter—knowledge
is infinite—what shall his pack of knowledge bet Now,
in reply to this important question, so forcibly put by
Lord Ashburton, one may, I think, safely lay down two
general principles for our guidance in this difficulty. First,
that the knowledge in question may be used as an instru-
Mont of intellectual development, as an exercise of the
capablel'lne rBt
aonfdpi nr
ga
c; t i Ira ld pe l inc ad itYi
lion of that knowledge which
nt
.hwae this
sontawo
ntl e ddog,
etehamay
iwsbioe.
tests._ Nom, let the'explainlisys airritiltrbststraie ifihat
#rn saying. I know of no mentor gymnastics which can
stand forone moment in comparison with the study of logic.
mean the ancient Aristotelian logie,with its whole theory
of syllogistic reasoning, and the perfectly rigorous demon-
krations by which the propositions are established. I be-
lieve that, as a whetstone for sharpening and putting a
fine edge on the understanding, giving great precision of
definition, and accuracy in drawing legitimate conclusions
froii given premises, shutting out the truth or falsehood
of the premises themselves, the old logic of the school-
men, as they are called, stands unrivalled and unapproach-
ble. The study of mathematics under this one point of
view is not, in my opipion, to be compared with it. There
may, however, be some doubt as to the position the study
of geometry holds with regard to it; certainly none as re-
spects analysis. Now, notwithstanding all this, and though
it had besides the prestige of centuries in its favour, the
study of the ancient logic has beenl almost if not quite
abandoned in all our universities. The spirit of sound rea-
soning still hallows their courts, but its 'outward form re-
poses forgotten in the dust on their shelves. 'Why was this?
Because the study of logic failed in this characteristic be-
cause it was hustled out Of its Owe by iudiiest
provided
fovmidoerde
palpable, utility. Logic may hive strengthened the grasp,
may have nerved the intellectual muscle; but 't
no well-denned mental engine, like mathematical analysis,
or the doctrine of atomic weights, which enable their pos-
lessors to master the stubborn resistance of nature. Your
libourers in the field do not practise gymnastics, because
they sensibly feel that their daily toil gives them qui,te
enough of muscular exertion. SO, in our own day, men
cannot afford the time to whet their wits on barren studies,
no more than our merchants can afford to take exercise of
a morning by walking, when they are forced to rush into
tewn by the rail. Again, a knowledge of Roman law
would be a most useful acquirement ; but how can any
one give his whole time to it, while new discoveries in
knowledge are matters of daily expectation ?

THE CASE OF ARCHDEACON DENISON.

BATH, OCT. 22.
The arguments in this case were resumed. The inte-
rest excited yesterday increased, if possible, in intensity
tbis morning, Judicious arrangements, however, were
Made by the authorities, so that while every part of the
hid' was filled there was no dangerous or uncomfortable
crowding.

' Dr. PEIILLIMORE, in rising to reply,, said that his
learned friend Dr. Bayford had alleged that his (Dr.
Phillimore'e) argument would go to this effect—that,
inasmuch as he contended that the 29th article was not
within the scope of the 13th of Elizabeth, there was no
censure to be passed on a clergyman for contradicting,
depraving, or impugning the articles. That was a mis-
take ; he was not contending that a clergyman was not
liable to punishment for depraving or impugning any one
of them. He was aware that clergymen were obliged to
sign. the Thirty-nine Articles. What he maintained was,
that this particular statute did not apply to the 29th
article. The 29th article having bean inserted after the
original articles were introduced, the Archdeacon was
eScempted from censure. Lawyers who' had given' their
()Onion upon the subject had done so without having
their attention drawn specifically to the 29th article;
their authority, therefore, could not be adduced against
the weight of testimony to be advanced from other
sources. It would be a most oppressive construction
of the statute, if there hung about it only a small
portion of the doubt which he thought encom-
passed it, to press it against the Archdeawn to the
deprivation of his beneAce. He was entitled to the great
doubt which existed as to whetber the article was or was
not within the purview of the statute. If his Grace was
of opinion that he (Dr. Phillimore) had established the
point for which he had contended, the idea of proceeding
against the Archdeacon for the 28th article isolated from
the rest was one which it was preposterous to conceive,
and indecent to entertain.

judgment lon the point
raised. Raving alluded to the authorities on the sub-
ject, the learned judge overruled the objection.
sentence, I wish it to be distinctly understood that
court proceeds to pass
Archdeacon Denison.is perfectly ready to subscribe, ex
ammo, tne Thirty-nine Articles.
scuo lnti nw
will make
the arch-
grace, who desires me to say that if, even at this last
gthe opinion of his
revo-
cationm
which is required by the statute upon the two
make that
p
liA2llnBauotrghretei
a_snntadimlt
22e
bdi
stahi
sni
amdtrihptrieoecscidset
healy c
Irisafnottgirroranarrucyeoe
and
tsn
otdrh
eaearnedcspoy:u,tegr
to
hats question
required w itho ut
by entering
the
declaration, i nt o
receive such revocation.
thatto w
so man and ae
whatasa i7sa res•
quired by the statute. I think the Court has included
in that declaration a proposition which •
it cannot intend
the archdeacon torevoke. I •.
is impossible to revoke is proposition that the holy elements do not undergo a
change. The archdeacon is called upon to deny a denial
of transubstantiation. I cannot advise him to dose.
Dr. Lushington—There are
two propositions con-
e
t
tained in this declaration which the archdeacon is called
al
taoi
:Dix L
ODI Dr.
arch-
bishop,
roatrrre.stp,
no:
pwPtLl,:t
hohbahuutni
oshsidl
hi mnnv
Iggoe Lushington
minr pronouncedßbniafter
fwarrecexpressingh
edtconsulting
on to revoke. The first of these is—" That all who
come to the Lord's table, to those
who eat and drink
worthily, and to those who eat and drink unworthily,
the body and blood of Christ are given, and that by all
who come to the Lord's table, by those who eat and
drink worthily, and by those who eat and drink un-
worthily, the body and blood of Christ are received."
The Court then adjourned for an hour.
On the return of the Archbishop,
Dr. Phillimore said—My Lord Archbishop, I have
bad a conference with my venerable client, ano I hope
your gr ice will be of opinion that, iriaemuch as the de-
claration was modified by what fell from the Court, I
have not occupied any great length of time in holding it.
My venerable client is anxious that I should state to the
Court, in his own terms, his answer to his grace's re-
quisition. The archdeacon says :—" In respect of the
receiving of the body and blood of Christ by the wicked,
I find in Article 26 the words following :—‘ They that
receive them (the Sacraments) unworthily, purchase to
themselves damnation, as St. Paul saith.' I find in
the Catechism—' That a sacrament has two parts, the
outward and the inward. That the inward part or
thing signified of the sacrement of the Lord's Supper is
the body and blood of Christ.' I am, therefore, unable to
deny that the body and blood of Christ, the inward part
or thing signified of the sacrament, are received by the
wicked to their damnation, and I disclaim receiving
them in any other sense. In re, pect to the worship due,
I am unable to deny that Christ himself, the thing signi-
fied of the sacraments, is to be worshipped in and with
the sacraments. I say, that apart from and without
the sacrament, wheresoever he is, he is to be worshipped.
I disdain any other worship." That is the declaration
of the venerable archdeacon which t now hand in.
Dr. Lushington.—His grace does not think it neces-
sary to say more than that this is no such revocation as
is required by the act.
Dr. Lushington then proceeded, at great length, to
read the sentence, which concluded with the following:—
The archdeacon having declined to make the revocation
required of him, and having declared his firm adherence
to the substance of that teaching which the Court has
declared to be contrary and repugnant to the articles, it
becomes the duty of the Court to pronounce the sentence
required by the statute—the sentence of deprivation.
The learned judge added that the Court would allow
the costs as against the archdeacon.
Dr. Bayford intimated that his client (the Rev. Mr.
Ditcher) was willing to waive the costs.
Mr. Bathurst, the proctor of Archdeacon Denison,
gave nctice of appeal.
rdr. C. Burchett, the proctor, who appeared for the
Rev. Mr. Ditcher, prayed the Court to limit the time
for the appeal.
Sir S. Lushington named Dec. 5.
Mr. Dyke then read the formal sentence of the Court,
which was as follows :

" In the name of God, Amen.—Whereas, there is now
depending iu judgment before us, John Bird, by Divine
Providence Lord Archbishop of Canterbury, Primate of all
England, and Metropolitan, acting under the provisiors
of a certain act of Parliament made and passed in the 3d
and 4th years of the reign of her present Majesty, entitled
' An Act for better enforcing Church Discipline,' a certain
cause or proceeding promoted by the Rev. Joseph Ditcher,
clerk, vicar of the parish of South Breut, in the county of
(:nerset, against the Venerable Gloorgo Anthony Denton,

parish of last Brent, in the raid county of Somerset, andl.
and province o
in the diocese of Bath and Wells,
aanedleirticeliantihdo,lAy
rocredeerascerfonithofe UlanuitnetdonC,haunrdchviocfarEnogflatnhde
Canterbury, which said cause of proceeding is pro-
moted and brought before us by reason that theptat saidona
or right of presentation, as well of, in, and
to
archdeaconry of Taunton, as of, in,
vicar-
age of East Brent, belongs to the L
dio-
cese of Bath and Wells aforesaid;
and duly proceeding in the cause or proceeding, issued
our cotamissiou under our hand and seal authorising and
requiring the commissioners therein named to inquire into
the grounds of the charges made against the said George
and oarndd
whereas Bishop
to
the said
we,of the
rightly
Anthony Denison ; and whereas the said commissioners,
having met and examined witnesses, transmitted to us
under their hands and seals the depositions of the wit-
nesses taken before them, and also a report of the unani-
Mous opinion of the commissioners present at the inquiry
that there was sufficientprintafaeie ground for instituting
proceedings against the said George Anthony Denison ;
and whereas articles were thereupon drawn up and filed
as required by the said act of Parliament, wherein the
said George Anthony Denison was charged and articled
touching and concerning his soul's health, and the lawful
correction and reformation of his manners and excesses,
and more especially for having offended against the laws
and statutes, and against the constitutions and canons
ecclesiastical of this realm, by having preached three
several sermons or discourses in the Cathedral of Wells,
aft therein mentioned, and by having written, printed,
published, dispersed, and set forth, or caused to be
printed, published, dispersed, and set forth, the said ,
sermons respectively, with prefaces, advertisements, ap-
pendices, and sundry notes thereto, and having advisedly,
maintained Or affirmed in such sermons, prefaces, adver-
tisements, appendices, and notes, certain positions or doc-
trines directly contrary and repugnant to the doctrine of
the United Church of England and Ireland as by law esta-
blished, and pspecially to the Articles of Religion agreed
Ton by the archbishops and bishops of both provinces and
t e whole clergy in the convocation holden at London in
t e year of our Lord God 1562, according to the cOmputa-
tion of the Church of England, for the avoiding the diver-
sities of opinion's, and forthe establishing of consent touch-
hag true religion, or some one of them, and against the act
or statute made in the Parliament holden at Westminster,
in the 13th year of the reign of her Majesty Elizabeth,
Queen of England, entitled An Act for the Ministers of
the Church to be of sound roligien ;' and whereas the said
George Anthony Denison was dilly served with a copy of
the said articles, and was duly required by writing under
our hand to appear and to make answer to the said articles;
and whereas we, rightly and duly proceeding in the said
cause or proceeding, with the assistance of three assessors
nominated by us—to wit, the Right Honourable Stephen
Lushington, Doctor of Laws, Judge of her Majesty's High
Court of Admiralty of England, and who has practised as
an advocate for five years and upwards in the court of the
Archbishop of the said province of Canterbury; the Very
Reverend George Henry Sacheverell Johnson, Master of
Arts, Dean of the Cathedral Church of Wells; and the
Rev. Charles Abel 13eurtley, Doctor in Divinity, the Lady
Margaret's Professor in Theology in the. University of
Oxford—having heard, seen, and understood, and fully
and maturely discussed the merits and circumstances; and
diligently searched into and considered of the whole pro-
ceedings had and done therein, 'and observe all and sin-
gular the matters and things that by law ought to be
observed, and having heard witnesses examined in, proof
of the said articles, and heard advocates and proctors on
both sides thereon, did, on Tuesday, the 12th day of
August, 1856, pronounce; decree, and declare that the
eight first articles filed against the said archdeacon were
proved, so far as is by law necessary; that the 9th, 10th,
11th, 13th, and 14th of the articles filed in the said cause
or proceeding on behalf of the said Rev. Joseph Ditcher
were proved, and that the charges therein made were es-
tablished, so far as is hereinafter mentioned • and that
whereas it is pleaded in the said 9th article, filed in the
said proceedings, that the said archdeacon, in a sermon
preached by-him in the Cathedral Church of Wells, on or
about Sunday, the 7th of August, 1853, did advisedly
maintain and affirm doctrines directly contrary and repug-
nant to the 25th, 28th, 29th, and 35th of the articles of
religion referred to in the statute of the 13th of Elizabeth,
chapter 12, or some or one of them, and amongst other
things did therein advisedly maintain and affirm That
the body and blood' of Christ being really present after an
n
drink
receivedrudnkw wtuoe immaterialrb,ritytycnhhahkoaeairablfl
enlybwlil
ods,towowhuhdtrsorhhe:ptproohesi
ae,rai
coinli
adaatabnhenelysl
dsodtmtetaooosthbudashtyetn:
rehohntrefsehbee:
Lord'sbol
dosyiho
doein di r
wdst hoths
assistance
foet
giventdeterminetechrabaeablttnelorr
received
snb;cat,yedulare consecrated
atnidrahier
ihadondng:
en
drink
t:imbvTwrwteouheahnuhnaeares:d.;te
all who come to the Lord's table, to those who eat and
concurrencey
d
id
tawa
hanoetdr atathnhii dldaydta, rb'
doctrine in the said passages was'directly cootrary and
repugnant to the 28th and 29th of the said articles of reli-
gion mentioned in the aforesaid statute of Queen Eliza-
beth, and that the construction put upon the said articles
of religion by the Venerable the Archdeacon of Taunton,
viz., that the body and blood of Christ become so joined to,
and become so present in, the consecrated elements by the
act of consecration that'the unworthy receivers receive in
the elements the body and blood of Christ, is not the true
or an admissable construction of the said articles of religion;
that suchdoctrine is directly contrary and repugnant to the
28th and 29th articles, and that the true and legal exposition
of the said articles is, that the body and blood of Christ are
taken and received by the worthy receivers only, who in
taking an d receiving, the same by, faith do spiritually eat the
fleshof Christ and drink His blood, while the wicked arid
unworthy, by eating the bread and drinking the wine with-
out faith, do not in any.wise eat, take, or receive the body
and blood of Christ, being void of faith, whereby only the
body and blood of Christ can be eaten, taken, and received ;
and whereas it is pleaded in the said 11th of the articles
filed in the said proceeding that divers printed copies of the
said sermon or discourse in the 10th article mentioned, as
written or printed, or caused to be printed by the said
Archdeacon Denison, were by his order and direction sold
and distributed some time in the years 1853 and 1854,
within the said diocese of Bath and Wells; and whereas
the said sermon or discourse contains the following, among
other passages That the body.and blood of Christ being
really present after an immaterial and spiritual manner in
the consecrated bread and wine are therein and thereby
given to all, and are received by all who come to the Lord's
table ;' and That to all who come to the Lord's table, to
those who eat and drink worthily, and to those who oat and
drink unworthily, the body and blood of Christ are given ;
and that by all who come to the Lord's table, by those who
eat and drink worthily, and by those who eat and drink
unworthily, the body and blood of Christ are received ;'
we, the said Archbishop, with the assistance of our said as-
sessors, did determine that the passages aforesaid contain
a repetition of the erroneous doctrine charged in the 9th
article filed in this proceeding, and that such doctrine is
directly contrary and repugnant to the 28th and 29th of
the articles of religion mentioned in the aforesaid statute
of Queen Elizabeth. And, whereas it is pleaded in the
14th of the said articles, filed in the said proceeding, that
divers printed copies of a sermon or discourse in the 12th
article mentioned as written and printed, or caused to be
printed by the said archdeacon, were by his order and di-
rection sold and distributed in the years 1853 and 1854
within the said diocese of Bath and Wells; and whereas the
said sermon or discourse contains the following, among
other passages That all who come to the Lord's table,
to those who eat and drink worthily, and to those who
oat and drink unworthily, the body and blood of Christ
aro given ; and that by all who come to the Lord's table,
by those who eat and drink worthily, and by those who
eat and drink unworthily, the body and blood of Christ
are received ;' and 'lt is not true that the consecrated
broad and wine are changed in their natural substances,
for they remain in their very natural substances, and there-
fore may not be adored. It is true that worship is due to
the real though invisible and supernatural presence of the
body and blood of Christ in the Holy Eucharist, under the
form of bread and wine. We, the said archbishop, with
the assistance of our said assessors, did determine that the
doctrine in the said passages is directly contrary and re-
pugnant to the 28th and 29th of the said articles of reli-
gion mentioned in the aforesaid statute of Queen Eliza-
beth. And whereas we, the said archbishop, thereupon
allowed time to the said archdeacon to revoke his error,
until Wednesday, the Ist day of October, then ensuing
and now last past, with intimation that if no such revo-
cation as is required by the statute of Elizabeth aforesaid,
should be made and delivered into the registry of Bath
and Wells by that time, we would, in obedience to the
statute, pronounce sentence in the said cause or proceed-
ing, which was therefore adjourned to this day, Tuesday,
the 21st day of October instant, and from thence been fur-
ther adjourned to this day. And whereas Coe said Vener-
able George Anthony Denison, notwithstanding the pre-
mises, bath not made or delivered any such revocation as
aforesaid, but doth still persist in and hath not revoked
his said error, and the said promoter, by his proctor, ear-
nestly praying sentence to be given, and the proctor of the
said George Anthony Denison praying justice without
waiving his protests; therefore we, the said John Bird,
the archbishop aforesaid, having first called upon the name
of Christ, and setting God alone before our eyes, have,
with the assistance of the said Right Hon. Stephen
Lushington, the very Rev. George Henry Sacheverell
Johnson, Dean of Wells, and Rev. Charles Abel Heart-
ley, our aforesaid assessors, and of the Right Rev.
Thomas Carr, a bishop of the Church of England, and
rector of St. Peter and St. Paul's in the city of Bath, in
the county of Somerset, and diocese of Bath and Wells ;
and the C. 0. Mayne, clerk prebendary of the Cathedral
Church of Wells aforesaid ; and the Rev. J. Thomas,
Doctor of Civil Law, sitting with us in the said cause,
with whom we have folly communicated on this behalf,
and having maturely deliberated upon the proceedings
bad therein, and the offence proved, exacting by law de-
privation of ecclesiastical promotion, have thought fit to
pronounce, and do accordingly pronounce, decree, and
declare, that the said Venerable G. A. Denison, by rea-
son of the premises, ought by law to be deprived of his
ecclesiastical promotions, and especially of the said arch-
deaconry of Taunton, and of the said vicarage and parish
church of East Brent, in the county of Somerset, diocese
of Bath and Wells, and province of Canterbury, and, all
profits and benefit of the said arebdeaconry, and of the
said vicarage and parish church, and of and from all and
singular the fruits, tithes, rents, salaries, and other cc.
clesiastical dues, rights, and emoluments whatsoever,
belonging and appertaining to the said archileaconry, and
to -the said vicarage and parish church ; and we do de-
prive him thereof accordingly by this our definite sen-
tence or final decree, which we read and promulgate by
the4e presents."
This concluded the proceedings.
During the day the court was crowded to excess, the
greatest anxiety being shown by a large body of the
clergy and the general public to obtain admittance.

In consequence of the large number of blind and help-
less 'Crimean soldiers who, in pursuance of directions
from the Board of Commissioners of Chelsea Hospital,
are to be discharged from the invalid establishment at
Chatham, Brevet-Major S. G. Bunbury, commanding
the depot of the Medical Staff Corps, has received an
Order to furnish a large party of assistant stewai de and
wardmisters to take charge of and assist in conveying
them in safety to their respective homes in various parte
of the kingdom.