The Sun.
London, England, 1868-04-14 00:00:00

stand. Still more difficult is it to draw a dis-
tinction between the burning of incense and
the playing a voluntary upon the organ—be-
tween an appeal to the sense of smelling and
that of hearing. And yet such a distinction
must be drawn, because the Privy Council, in
the case already mentioned, ruled that any in-
terpretation of the Statutes or Rubrics that
involved the unlawfulness of the organ was
manifestly absurd. Had Dr. Phillimore de-
voted but a small portion of his four hours
and a half to explaining these difficulties and
inconsistencies, we of the outside public would
know better where we stand. His decision
on the other points is open to similar objections.
He makes no attempt to reconcile his prohibi-
tion of elevation and of the mixed cup with
the emphatic repudiation by the Privy Council
of the principle previously laid down by Dr.
Lushington, that in the interpretation of the
Rubrics, " what is not enjoined is prohibited."
Yet it is wholly upon the absence of such
injunctions that he bases his prohibition. As
we proceed, we get still more bewildered by
one of the :--iost singular blunders over perpe-
trated by a judge upon the bench. Dr. Philli-
more delivered his judgment affirming the
lawfulness of altar-lights, under the delusion
that the, perhaps, most extraordinary statute
of the most extraordinary sovereign England
ever saw—that which conferred on the pro-
clamations of the King the force of law—
had never been repealed. The blunder has
been, of course, pointed out in the press with
the well-founded remark that it deprives this
part at least of the judgment of all moral
weight. As we have already intimated, an
appeal is to be made to the Privy Council
upon this last-mentioned point, and, doubt-
less, the whole case will be then reviewed, and
the state of the law finally determined. Although
these questions may appear at first sight not
directly to affect Catholics we must remember
that, in truth, a formal national repudiation by
law of any Catholic doctrine or usage is an
offence against God for which the nation is
answerable, and which the nation, including
ourselves, and, perhaps, pre-eminently we our-
selves will ultimately have to expiate.
We cannot conclude without pointing out
the singular illustration furnished by those
ecclesiastical causes of that mysterious but
real power—the power of the genus loci. In
the judicial committee of the Privy Council,
a court created by Act of Parliament, a dry,
hard, technical spirit reigns ; the lords of the
council are lawyers, and nothing more. In
our old ecclesiastical courts, on the other hand,
whether presided over by low-churchmen like
Dr. Lushington, or high-churchmen like Dr.
Phillimore, by men more, or by men less anti-
Catholic, a different spirit prevails, a more
religious, a more theological tone and temper,
no trace of which is perceptiblein the Privy
Council. They never seem to forget that they
are sitting as ecclesiastical judges, that they
represent a prelate who claims to be successor
of St. Augustine and St. Thomas. Strange,
that the shadow, as it were, of those great
saints and martyrs, the founders and cham-
pions of these ecclesiastical courts, should seem
still to be cast over them.—Westminster Gazette.