New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1856-11-14

they do carnaEy ard visbly press with their teeth
las Saint Augustine saith the Sacrament OF the Body
and Blood Of Christ yet in wise are they parakers
of Chriit but rather, 10 ,teir condemnation DO eat
and drink the sign or Sacrament Of SO great thing
The Archdeacon's counsel endeavored to repel
the charge Of heresy based on the latter passage
above recited by referring to the following quah-
cation contained in the same sermon: at is not
"tIue that the consecrated bread and wine are
" changed in their natural substances, for they
"remain in their very natural substances, and,
therefore may not be adored;" and to his
declaration in the first sermon that, though the
wicked ate the body and blood of Christ, they ate
it to their damnation; but neither of these pas
sages was adjudged by the Court to be any such
Modification of the other as TO purge them OF
their heretical character.
The Archdeacon also sought to put in certain
texts Of Scripture, by way proving that his doc
trne was true but these texts the Court refused to
hear. What an awkward position it would pu: US
n-such was the substance Of the reasons given
by DR.. Lushipgton for refusing this application
to convince us that, though the Archdeacon's doc
trine is contrary to the Articles, it is nevertheless
conformable to Scripture They did not sit there as
q school of theology, to determine what was true
sud what was false, but merely as a Court to de-
eide whether certain doctrines were or not in con-
foImity to the Articles of the Church of England.
The defendants counsel next proposed relying
upon late decision of the Judicial Committee OF the
Pryy Council in another of these church trias-the
famous Gorham case-tO put in certain extracts
from the writings Of certain Church-ot-England d.
vines, and certain passages from the liturgy and other
formuaIes, by way of showing that, whetherexactly
cOnformable or not to the true Interpretation of the
Articles, the ArchdeacOn's views had been held and
promulgated by many high Church authorities.
But the Court held that this sort of outside refer
ence only applicable to cases where the Articles
were Themselves expressed in ambiguous terms, and
were of dubious and doubtful interpretation giving
room for variety of expOsitioDs, which they hell
was Lot the case with the 18th and 29th articles, OF
which the expressions were unambiguous and the
doctrine plain and clear. The decision of the Court
on this point is summed up in the following PASSAGE
at may possibly be that the primary rule of con-
srucon Jay not always suffice that the plain gram
NAUTICAL Interpretation may still leave the true meaning
Of some article or some part OF 1t open 10 doubt. II
in any case such should be the result in the mind OF the
Court after due delberaiion it would no. hesitate to
take into ts consideration any authorities which would
throw light upon doubtful meaning; 1t would pay
great respect TO the writings of eminent divines and
the opinions expressed by them on point of doubtful
meaning; ard the Court does not hesitate TO declare
that if in any case found that these prn
cipes an article fairly capable OF two meanings
or that there reasonable doubt as to the true
meaning, it would never hold clergyman guilty OF
contraveDing the Articles for mantsining of two
a1y 10 m construction
on that which doubtful. To admit, however, OF
such course Of preceding we must never forget that
there must first be reasonable doubt as to the true
meaning of the article IN question: construed according
10 the ordinary rules Of Interpretation and according
10 its plain grammatical sense. IL there had been any
such doubt ambiguity II would have been the duty
of the Court 10 consider any passages OF the Liturgy
and other formularies which bear upon the subject
although the statute under which this is tried re-
fers to the Articles alone. But no such reference IS
necessary The article is free from all ambiguity. II
must however be supposed that the Court has sny
doubt respecting the bearing of the formuaries upon
the case-beDg satt fed that the formulsries entirely
col firm what is declared BY the Count to be the mean
ing Of the article"
The Court, in their sentence, held the true and
legal Interpretation of those articles to be, "that
"tbe body and blood of Christ are taken and re-
ceived by the worthy receivers only, who, in TAX
ing and receiving the same by faith, do spiritually
Z" eat The flesh of Christ and drink his blood, while
"the wicked and unworthy, by eating the bread
and drinking the wine without 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 or
received" directly contrary 10 which was the doc
trine of the Archdeacon "tha the body and blood of
Christ become so joined TO, and become so pres
lent in the consecrated elements by the act Of
conservation, that tho unworthy receivers receive
in the elements the body and blood of Christ"
doctrine not merely expressed in the passages
complained Of, but conveyed by the whole tenor of
the two sermons.
The Archdeacon being thus found guilty of heresy,
the Court proceeded under authority of the statute
Is Elizabeth oh. II, TO require him to retract,
under pain of deprivation should he not do so, and
they adjourned for some weeks 70 give him time to
take the matter into consideration.
On the re-assenbling of the Court, an attempt
was made 10 quash the proceedings on the ground
that the twenty article was not in existence
at the time of the passage of the statute of Eliza
beth, but was subsequently introduced without act
of Parliament and by the sole authority of the
Queen. To establish this point, some recent his
torical Investigations contained in DR.. Lambs
History of the Thrty-Eine Articles were relied
upon. That statute does not recte the articles,
nor mention their number, but refers to them as
being set forth in book entitled Articles where
upon ii was agreed by the ArchbishOps and
" Bishops of the Provinces and the Conyocation of
the Clergy in the Year 1862"
DIR. Lamb had discovered little book bearing
the same title, with the addition, however, of an
initial The" which he contends is the very book
referred 70 in the statute and in which book the