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


rally since that recent date. What is it And
wherefore
The sentence Of deprivation, of which the last
mail from England brought accounts, pronounced
by the Archbishop Of Canterbury, by the mouth OF
DR.. LushingtOn, as his assessor, against :" the
"Venerabe, for such is, or ratherwas, his official
title-Archdeacon DenisOn, tried before His Grace
on a charge of heresy, is striking instance of the
strong reaction going on in England against the
Tractarian, Puseyite or Cathoicizng party-a re-
action marked in this instance not only by Il
triumph over Puseyite innovations or reyvals, but
even over the Archbishop himself made the reluc-
tant instrument of inficting the punishment.
We had occasion several months since to refer to
this case in connection with mandamus issued to
the Archbishop by the Court of Queens Bench,
requiring him to proceed in the trial. The facts
and the points thus far decided were as follows:
The Venerable G. A. Denison was not only Arch
deacon of Taunton but also Vicar of the Parish of
East Brent and in one or the other both of these
capacities he preached, some two and half years
ago, at Wells, sermon, which appeared to the
Mayor Of that city, who is sneeringly described
by the Archdeacon's counsel as "av very respectable
grocer to contain Romanizing doctrines, contrary
to the Articles Of the Church of England, on the sub
jects of the Eucharist and the real presence. That
fact this theological grocer communicable the Rev.
Mr. Dtcher, Vicar of South Brent through whose
agency the proceedings were commenced, which
have resulted in the Archdeacons condemnation aud
deposition. This same sermon, il also appeared, he
aftelward printed and published, which was another
Of the charges sustained against him, as also the
printing and publishing of another sermon, contain
ing repetition, with variations, of the Objectiona
Bile doctrines. The proceedings taken by the
Rev Mr. Ditcher were under new statute
of the Sd and 4th of the present Queen giving
the bishops Of the diocese power, in all cases
of misbehavior and false doctrine on the part
Of clergymen, to proceed against them, and obging
them to proceed en- the complaint of third parties
properly brought before them. The Rev. Mr..
Ditcher applied first to the Bishop Of Bath aud
Wells, the diocesan of the Archdeacon, but he
declined to take any action of bis own authority.
That Bishop having died, the complainant applied
to bis successor, bu. with no better success. H.
deed it was stated, in the course Of the trial.
that the present Bishop of Bath and Wells
has openly and repeatedly declared that he recog-
nized the doctrines of the Archdeacon as true and
orthodox. The Rev. Mr.. Ditcher then ma lie
c. mplaint on bis own account, which, under a pro.
vision Of the statute, came before the Archbishop
of Canterbury, the preferment held BY the Arch
deacon being in the gift of the Bishop Of Bath and
Wells, who, on that account, was disqualified by
the statute from trying him. The Archbishop &C.
cordiDgly appointed Commission under the statute
to institute preliminary inquiry, which Com
mission reported that the charge was such and so
sustained as to justify further proceedings.
The Archbishop, however, was very unwilling
to proceed any further. He stated, in answer to
the compainants frequent applications, that he dill
not think any good would come from going on with
the case, and therefore, in the exercise Of dis.
erection which he claimed TO be vested in him by the
statute he suspended any further proceedings. Bat
the complainant and the Anti-TractariaD party were
not 10 be thus foiled. Application was made TO the
Court of Queens Bench, which, after deciding that
the Archbishop had no discretion in the matter,
issued maDdamus to him 10 proceed.
Thus pushed up TO the work, Court was con.
stituted, with the Archbishop as Judge and DR..
Huntington as his assessor, before which the trial
was had in August last. The following were the
passages in the two sermons charged to be heret.
cal, viz:
IL That the body and blood OF Christ. being really
present after mmaerial and spiritual manner in the
cons, Grated bread and wine, are therein and thereby
given TO all and are received BY all who come 10 the
Lords table; and that to all who come t, the Lords
table 10 those who eat and drink worhily and 10 those
who eat and drink snworthly, the body and blood of
Christ are given; and that by all who come 10 The
Lords table by those who eet and drink worthiy and
hy those who eat and drink unworthily the body and
blood of Christ are received" and,
80 1t is true that worshp due TO the real though
invisible and supernatural presence Of the body and
blood of Christ in the Hey Eucharist under the form
Of bro sd and " ine."
1t was charged that these passages we're directly
contrary to the 2oth article Of the Church of Eng.
land, snd especially to the 29tharticle which ia
in the following terms:
"Ayt. XXIX.-Of tie Wicked ckict ca, no, N,
Eody of CHRIS. ia tAe we Of tie Lorfs SHpper,-Tha