The Sun.
London, England, 1856-10-22 00:00:00

THE CASE OF ARCHDEACON DENISOIV.

BATH, OCT. 21.
The Court constituted to try the suit promoted by the
Rev. J. Ditcher, vicar of South Brent, Somerset, against
the Ven. G. A. Denison, Archdeacon of Taunton, for
preaching and publishing doctrines relating to the Sacrament
of the Lord's Supper alleged to be repugnant to the Thirty-
nine Articles, sat to-day in the Guildhall, Bath, by ad-
journment from 12th August last. It will be recollected
that at the last sitting Dr. Lnshington, on behalf of the
Archbishop of Canterbury, read a declaration containing
the conclusions of his Grace and his assessors on the clues-
tions at issue. His Grace therein pronounced the doctrines
•F the Archdeacon to be contrary to the 28th and 29th
Articles of the Church, and called upon him to revoke his
errors before the Ist inst. on pain of deprivation. The
Archdeacon having allowed the period of grace extended
to him to expire without lodging the required retractation
in the registry of Bath and Wells, the Court re-assembled
to-day to deliver judgment. The Guildhall was densely
crowded with spectators long before the proceedings corn• I
menced, the clerical element preponderating in the audi.
tory. The dimensions of the hall are extremely limited,
and large numbers of applicants were refused admission.
In court we observed Bishopearr, PrebendaryOmmanney,
and Captain Scobell, M.P. The Archdeacon was again
accompanied to court by the Right Hon. J. W. Henley,
M.P. for Oxfordshire. Dr. R. Phillitnore, M.P., acted as
counsel for the Archdeacon of Taunton, and Dr. Bayford
for the Rev. Mr. Ditcher, the promoter, who was also pre-
sent.

His Grace the Archbishop, Dr. Lushington (his assessor),
Dr. Travers Twiss (the Vicar-General), and Mr. F. H.
Dyke (registrar) having taken their seats,
Dr. Lushington opened the proceedings by stating that
two papers purporting to emanate from the Archdeacon of
Taunto❑ had been delivered into the registry of Bath and
Wells on the 30th of September. The one was a statement
and the other a protest, and the Court now wished to know
what course the. Archdeacon wished to pursue.
Dr. Phillimore said he thought it would save the time of
the Court if he were permitted in the first instance to argue
for the protest, which had for its object to show that the
29th article of the Church especially was not one to which
the 13th of Elizabeth, chapter 12, applied. If he failed in
sustaining that point, which he confidently hoped would
not be the case, then he would endeavour to prove that the
paper put in by his venerable client was such a practical
compliance with the order of the Court as the statute of
Elizabeth required.
Dr. Lushington said that the Court would first dispose
of the protest; but if the objection it took was a valid one,
the Court was at a loss to understand why it was not
raised at the earliest stage of the proceedings, and would
be glad if any satisfactory explanation could be afforded
on that point.
Dr. Phillimore should have have felt it his duty, even if
such a demand had not been made on him by his Grace's
learned assessor, to state at the outset why the objection
contained in the continued protest was not taken in lintine
—an objection which, if valid, was certainly fatal to the
condemnation of the doctrines of the Archdeacon. In the
original criminal articles filed against the Archdeacon by the
Rev. Mr. Ditcher his client was charged with offending
against four of the 39 articles of the Church—viz., the 25th,
28th, 29th, and 35th. By the conclusions cone to by his
Grace and his assessors, and promulgated at the last sitting,
his client was practically acquitted of any offence against
the 25th and 35th articles, because the censures of his Grace
were confined to the interpretation put by the Archdeacon
in his 4errnon on the 28th and 29th articles. If, therefore,.
the objection as to the 29th article hail been raised in
thane, and it had been sustained, his client would still
have been left exposed as regarded the other articles, to
which that objection did not extend. He had had great
difficulties to contend with, owing to the indisposition of
his client to allow him at an earlier stage to take objections
in bar of any judicial inquiry,at all. Those objections had
been overruled by the Court, but there still remained the
question whether an objection should not be taken founded
on the fact that two of the articles mentioned in the charge
against the Archdeacon were not in the 13th of Elizabeth.
His attention had indeed been drawn to the allegation in
the present protest, that the 29th article was not comprised
in the book referred to by that statute ; but the weight of
the prima facie evidence against that proposition had in-
duced him at first to refrain from urging it. Since then,
however, he had had an opportunity of examining cer-
tain authorities which led him to a different conclu-
sion. Among these authorities was a work recently
published, which was very scarce, and a copy of which it
was extremely difficult to procure, namely, " Dr. Lamb's
History of the ThitWnine Articles," taken from the records
of the College over which that learned author presided,and
including fac-simile copies of four or eve different editions
of the articles. That book had never before come under his
notice, and its perusal had thrown an entirely new light
upon the subject, to)lis mind, at least. And when it was
considered that the Statute of Uniformity, the authority of
Lord Coke, and the judgment of Lord Stowell, in Stone's
case, all took for granted that the whole of the 39 articles
were binding under the 13th of Elizabeth, the oversight of
which he had been guilty was, he could not but think, very
pardonable. His Grace having acquitted the Archdeacon in
respect of two of the articles, and condemned him on two
others, it then became his duty, whatever might be the scru-
ples of his client, to prevent him, if possible, from falling
under so severe a penalty as deprivation, being convinced, as
he was, from a longand laborious investigation of books and
documents to which few had access, that the 29th article
did not come under the statute of Elizabeth. It was an
acknowledged maxim that it was never too late to urge a
plea in arrest of judgment, and he felt that he should hay
been doing wrong if he had allowed sentence to be pro-
nounced and had kept this objection in reserve for a court
of appeal. He was therefore now prepared to maintain the
position set forth in the protest.
Dr. Lushington.—His Grace is anxious to hear all that
can be reasonably urged in a case of this importance, and
desires you to proceed.

Dr. Phillimore said that the statute of Elizabeth, under
which this proceeding was taken, required the clergy to
declare their assent and to subscribe to all the articles of
religion which concern the confession of the true faith and
the doctrine of the sacraments as comprised in a book
entitled, " Articles whereupon it was agreed by the Arch-
bi.hop.s and Bishops of the Provinces and the Convocation
of the Clergy of the Year 1562." According to the law of
the Church of England for avoiding diversities of opinion
and the establishing of consent, if any pri?,st taught any
doctrines repugnant to the articles ho was to be " con-
vented" before the bishop, and if he then refused to revoke
his error he was to be deprived. The propositions which he
(Dr. Phillimore) had to sustain therefore were-Ist, that a
clergyman was required to subscribe the articles contained
in a book; 2d, that it must be a printed book; 3d, that it
must be a book with a particular title; 4th, it must be a
book put forth with the Queen's authority ; and sth, it
must be the book put forth with the Queen's authority in
156'2. But for the strong current of authority the onus of
proving that these articles were in that book would lie
with the Rev. Mr. Ditcher. Ho (Dr. Phillimore) knew of
no other statute in this realm in which any person, civil
or ecclesiastical, was threatened with penalties for an of-
fence not distinctly specified, but merely referred to as in-
tended to be gathered from a book ; and he undertook to
satisfy the Court that the 29th article, which his client
was charged with contravening, was not in the book so
imprinted and referred to by the statute of Elizabeth—he
undertook to show that there was no such book in exist-
ence when that statute was passed on the 29th of May,
1571—n0 book answering the requisitions of the statute
which contained the 29th article. When the facts came to
be carefully examined he maintained that no judicial mind
could arrive at any other conclusion save that this article
and another that ho would mention were not inserted with
the 39 articles by the 13th of Elizabeth, chap. 12, but were
placed there by an authority--whether that of the Crown
or any other—totally *hors the statute, and after the sta-
tute had become the law of the land. If he succeeded in
establishing these propositions he was sure his grace would
decide that the 29th article could not be included by any-
thing which took place subsequent to the act of the 13th
of Elizabeth. No doubt, it was assumed in every ordinary
work of their divines that the 29th article was included
in that statute ; and there was also a recital in the 17th of
Charles IL—the Statute of Uniformity—to the effect that
certain ecclesiastics—viz., the governors of colleges and
halls, should subscribe the Thirty-nine Articles mentioned
by the 13th of Elizabeth. This was, however, a misrecital,
the act of Elizabeth not mentioning any Thirty-nine
Articles, but referring to a book that might have contained
39 or any other number of articles. This showed how care-
lessly from an early period it was taken for granted that
the 13th of Elizabeth had done what it iea!ly never did.
lie contended that even the Act of Uniformity, by a mis-
taken reference to another act, could not enforce the sign-
ing of articles not actually included within that other act.
Lord Coke, 4th Institute, chap. 74, referred to the case of
a clergyman who claimed a right to subscribe to the arti-
cles "so far forth" as they were warranted by Scripture.
The case came before the Chief Justice of the King'sßeech,
and, it being held that the act was passed for the avoid-
ance of diversity of opinion, it was decided that the sub-
scription must be unconditional. The Thirty-nine Ar-
ticles, it was true, were there mentioned, but by reference
only. The decision was not that thirty-nine articles of
religion were enacted by the 13th of Elizabeth, but
simply that that statute rendered an unconditional sub-
scription imperative; and no question was then raised
as to whether the 29th article was included in the
statute of Elizabeth. Next, there was the judgment of
Lord. Stowell in Stone's case ; but there the case was that
of a clergyman advisedly holding doctrines at variance with
the 39 Articles, and contending that he had a right to do ,