The Sun.
London, England, 1869-01-14 00:00:00

T 17 SUN, LONDON, THUWzDAY EVENING, -JANUARY • 14, 1869.

mall, which was prepared to-fight. If wiser counsels
prevailed, it is not to one of the leaders of the party
that this result is due. Mr. BENNETT, of Frome,
who has already sustained one action, and who is at
this present time defendant in another, was for
resisting the decision of the Privy Council at all
risks, and he had a numerous and enthusiastic band
of supporters. It is worth while to review the pro-
ceedings at the Freemasons' Tavern, so that our
readers may have a clear understanding of the various
resolutions laid before the meeting.
The decision of the Judicial Committee of the
Privy Council in the case of MARTIN V. MACKO-
NOCME was given on December 23. On that day
week, December 30, a private meeting of High
Churchmen was held to consider the judgment and
the course which they should adopt. A committee
was appointed to draw up a report, and an adjourned
meeting was fixed for January 12. It was originally
intended that this meeting also should be private,
but in consequence of the great interest felt through-
out the country in its proceedings, it was decided
that the press should be admitted. Large and in-
fluential was the gathering—orderly, too, we are glad to
add. Archdeacon DENISON presided, and,while avow-
ing that he was not a Ritualist, contended, neverthe-
less, for due lil‘erty of worship, and urged obedience
to the judgment, to be followed by unremitting
efforts to get rid of the present Court of Final
Appeal. The report was next read, the substance of
which lengthy document has already been placed
before our readers. The resolutions were then pro-
posed seriatim. The two first were formal, and
carried without opposition. The third was the
crucial resolution, and gave rise to a discussion that
lasted for several hours. It was as follows :

That this meeting does not recognise the existing Court
of Final Appeal as a court qualified to declare the law of
the Church of England upon either doctrine orceremonial ;
that with respect to this particular judgment of
the said court in Martin v. Mackonochie, the meeting
finds, among other things, that that judgment disregards
the Church of England's fundamental principle of connec-
tion with and reference to the practice of the Church
primitive and catholic ; nevertheless, it acknowledges
the duty of submitting, under protest, to the law of the
land, upon that law being put in force, so far as such law
is expressed in the decree of the said judgment. and until
such law shall be further declared or amended."
This resolution was moved by the Rev. W. H.
MOLYNEUX, of Sudbury, in a very able speech. He
sliewed that in all judgments of this sort two courses
lay open to the clergy—either to accept and obey the
ruling of the court, or, if they found that to be incom-
patible with their higher duty as Churchmen and
Christians, to leave the Church in which that obe-
dience was required. The Hon. CHARLES WOOD,
president of the English Church Union, seconded
this resolution with cogent arguments. Mr. BENNETT,
of Frome, moved the omission of all the words after
the word " catholic," and the substitution of these
word.s

And therefore it (the meeting) is unable to reconcile
submission to the present decree with its paramount and
primary duty of obedience to the Church, and can only
await in patience the providence of God.

This amendment met with influential support,
although opposed by men life Mr. PERRY, one of
the royal commissioners, and an advanced Ritualist,
and Dr. LITTLEDALE. Eventually it was defeated.
A large number of amendments were then sug-
gested. One, proposing to stop short at the
word " catholic," drew forth an emphatic pro-
test from the Chairman, who pointed out
that this would stultify the resolution, and
that he should leave the chair if it were carried.
Eventually the following words were, on the motion
of Mr. MAYOW, substituted for that portion of the
original resolution beginning at the word 44 never-
theless "

At the same time this meeting, feeling the great diffi-
culty of the present case, and that there are many reasons
why those who have used the ceremonial or practice now
condemned by the Judicial Committee of the Privy
Council may be anxious to wait rather than give imme-
diate effect to the decision now p onounced, considers
that it is a matter that is best left to the individual
judgment and circumstances of each priest who has
been accustomed to use the ceremonial or practice in
question.

The main difficulty having been surmounted, the
other resolutions were speedily disposed of. One
urged upon the clergy to teach more emphatically
than ever the doctrine of the Real Presence; the
other expressed satisfaction at the thought that the
depreciation of the Sacraments during the last
twen+y years has issued in the wider and heartier
reception of the doctrine involved in them.

The result of this meeting is that the clergy will
be left to comply with this judgment on their
individual responsibility. In other words, if any of
them should find that no objection is taken to the
use of altar lights and genuflexions they will con-
tinue to use them. If they should be in danger of
prosecution, they, knowing what the law is, will be
at liberty to choose between obedience to the law and
which that law is
e secessionnforc enforced.
d. fromln the the Church
in
they will continue to
meanwhileteach the doctrine which the illegal practices
symbolise. Thus the Church Association will gain
nothing by its victory ; will have lost, rather, for the
doctrine is to be taught more earnestly and con-
' stantly than ever. If the Association really means to
banish from the Church what it considers to be false
doctrine, it will have to conduct a prosecution
for heresy—a far more serious and difficult matter
than a prosecution for illegal practices. Such a suit
has been already commenced against Mr. BENNETT,
of Frome ; but there is a rumour, though scarcely,
we think, well founded, that it has been aban-
doned. If the Privy Council should decide that
this doctrine is opposed to the teaching of the
Church of England, we do not see how a secession is
to be prevented, far more formidable than any
which has yet taken Place. This event
was, indeed, openly considered at a subsequent
meeting of the party who at Tuesday's meeting
unsuccessfully counselled resistance. Secession
will, of course, be followed by the disestablishment
of the Church, since it would be absurd to maintain
as the Church of the national body which even now is
in a minority, and which would then be reduced to
much smaller proportions. Disestablishment appears
to have no terrors for many High Churchmen. Indeed,
some of those at Tuesday's meeting avowed their
belief that the change would be for the better—at
all events unless the constitution of the Court of
Appeal be entirely altered. To bring about this
alteration is the work to which the High Church
clergy have now committed themselves, and for
which they will labour with all their well-known
energy.

AFTER the grave incident which occurred at the
first meeting of the Conference, it would be useless
to expect more than an ostensible settlement of the
difficulty between Turkey and Greece. The total
failure of the negotiations is seriously contemplated
in many quarters : an arrangement which will
be even a temporary guarantee of peace
is beyond hope. The work of reconciliation was
obviously difficult, and the attitude of the Great
Powers has not been such as to smooth the way. To
forbid the representative of Greece to appear on the
same terms as the Turkish Ambassador —to
arraign the little State, in fact, as a criminal
at the tribunal of the Powers was a pro-
ceeding which can be characterised only as absurd.
It was not warranted by the circumstances of the
case, and it was by no means calculated to diminish
the danger of a war. The proper mode of con-
demning the policy of the Greek Government was
to support the demands of Turkey ; the insult
ogered in the name of Europe could end only in
humiliation to all parties. Such, indeed, has been
the case. Greece has refused to take part in the
Conference unless her representative be permitted to
vote, and the Powers are left to the choice of agree-
ing to this demand or holding the Conference in the
absence of a principal party. The whole affair has
been mismanaged, and its issue is both discreditable
and dangerous. It is self-evident that Greece
would not venture upon the luxury of defying
the Powers unless the Athenian Government
had calculated the consequences. The demand
which was made at Paris on Saturday might
have been made before the Conference met; the fact
that Greece waited until the last moment before
refusing to come to terms can hardly be inisinter-