The Sun.
London, England, 1845-07-01 00:00:00

PIATFIELD V. PHILLIPS.

The further arguments in this part-heard writ of error occupied
their Lordships the whole morning.

ROLLS' COURT, June 30.

His Lordship the Master of the Rolls, having disposed of the
cases of " Dowden v. Hooke," and " Holcombe v. Antrobus,"
proceeded with the hearing of petitions.

VICE-CHANCELLORS' COURT, June 30.

The Vice-Chancellor of England, after disposing of several short
applications at the sitting of the Court, heard causes, none at which
call for a special report.
(Before the Vice-Chancellor KNIGHT Bauce.)
His Honour heard bankrupt petitions to.day.
(Before the Vice-Chancellor WIGRAM.)

The 'part-heard motion of " Lander v. Ingersoll" occupied his
Honour the whole thty.

ARCHES' COURT; June 30.
IN RE OAKLEY.

Sir H. J. FUST delivered judgment in this case this morning.
fin commenced by reading a pamphlet written by Mr. Oakley,
minister of the chapel of St. Margaret's, to the Lord Bishop
of London, in which Mr. Oakley claimed the right of
entertaining the doctrines of the Roman Catholic Church,
though not the right of teaching them as a minister of the
Church of England. The Learned Judge having gone through the
greater part of the pamphlet, and commented thereon, stated that
it was quite evident that it was the Roman Church which was
alluded to by Mr. Oakley. The question then for him to consider
was, whether the Church of Rome differed in its doctrines from
the Church of England, and if it did, what was the distinction.
The Court would look at the articles, not going through them all,
bat merely touching •n the leading articles. They were drawn
up in direct opposition to the Council of Trent. The foundation
of the doctrines of the Church of England mainly rested upon the
Scriptures, but the Roman Catholic Church added traditions to the
Scriptures, and treated them with part effectu with the Scriptures
themselves. The decree of the first four Councils were received, be-
cause they were consistent with the Scriptures, and the decrees of the
latter were rejected, because they were not founded on the Scriptures.
Mr. Oakley also seemed to convey that the Council of Nic a and the
Council of Trent were entitled to the same authority. Assuming
that new heresis had sprung up, he would not suppose the Church
to be silent on such occasions. The Church which he spoke of
was no doubt the Roman Church, for these were Councils of that
Church, and the doctrines there laid down wero recognised by the
Pope of Rome. This was the manner in which he thinks
it consistent with his duty to speak of the Reformers,
by whose assistance the yoke of the Church of Rome
was thrown off. He claimed the right to hold all the Roman doc-
trines laid down by the Councils of Trent and Nice since the sixth
century. That certainly was to be the interpretation of his letter
Then came the question as to what were the doctrines of the
Roman Church which were opposed to those of the Church of Eng-
land. In the first place, he says that he subscribed to the 39 Articles.
Mr. Oakley declared, as part of his belief the whole of the Roman
doctrines; consequently he affirms his belief in the doctrine of
purgatory, which is in direct contrariety to the belief of the Church
of England, as it was not to be found in the Scriptures. That
beliet was quite repugnant to the articles of the Church of Eng-
land. Then as to the sacraments, the Church of England only
rest• tnised two sacraments. There were, however, seven to be
bell tved by the Romish Church under the penalty of anathema,
as ,►as to be found in the seventh section of the Council of
Ta ,nt. So early as before the year 1476 were these set
forth by the Council. The next article was the question as to the
Lord's Supper, to which the thirteenth section of the Council
referred. The Church of England affirmed that transubstan-
tiation was not to be proved by the Scriptures, and that
suet) a belief was repugnant to Holy Writ. The Council
f Trent contradicted positively that affirmation that it was
not founded on the Scriptures. The sixth canon declared that,
on being consecrated, the bread and wine became con-
verted into the body and blood of Christ. How was Mr Oakley
to show that these were not conflicting doctrines? It was impos •
Bible that he could. Consequently he claims the right of affirming
doctrines opposed to those of the Church of England; and, as a nai-
nister of that Church, he was liable to censure. If, then, in any
case, surely in this case the Court should give a severe sentence.
He would revoke Mr. Oakley's license for preaching in the chapel
of St. Margaret's, and prohibit him from the performance of any
ministerial office in that chapel, or in the diocese of London, or
within the province of the Court, until he shall have repented
himself of his errors, and declared Isis readineas to
retract, and did retract these errors ; and must, as a
matter of course, also condemn him to the costs occasioned
by the proceedings, and order his sentence to Vi published on Sun•
slay next at the chapel of St. Margaret's.