New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1857-01-05

deacon Denis0n for refusing TO retract certain doc
trines on the subject of Christ's presence in the
Eucharist-adjudged by the Archbishop OF Canter'
burr. in a special Court held under recent act Of
Parliament for the trial of such offenders to be con-
trary to the Thirty nine Articesappears, as might
have been expecte,., to have produced good deal
of commoton among the clergy of the diocese OF
Exeter many of whom seem TO think themselves
in danger of ing themselves deprived Of their bene
fees on similar grounds and BY similar prCce-
dUre.
These appref ensions, mixed up with good deal
of criticism upon the opinion of the Court upon
which the deprivation of the ArchdeacOn was based,
have been embodied in numerous addresses presented
to Bishop Phil'potts, the whole of which he has
aus wered in body in curious and characteristic
pastoral letter.
While seeming to c0ntrOyert some of their Objec-
tens to and censures upon the procedure complained
%, tie Bishop goes plainly hand and heart with
them: VII e. as to the grand point OF Christs pres
Ell &c in The Eucharist he appears to take for himself
and them position little more modest and
received perhaps, but, in substance not very differ
en from that which the Court scudged to be beresy
in the ArcbdeacOn.
II seems that ArchdeacOn DenisOD, when called
up,n to retract the doctrine charged upon hn,
offered to substitute for his own words in HIS
Lrbted sermons, adjudged to be in contradiction to
the Articles the following passage from Bishop an
1reices's 8rSwer TO BNarmine "Christ himself
the thing signiftd in the sacrament is to be wOr-
shipped in and with the sacrament. Apart from
~ xrhar h.ai il
abe is to be wOrsh'ped." But the Court not only
refused to accept this passage as equivalent to the
rctract:on demanded; they went further, and pro-
bounced it to be neither more nor less than re-
iteration Of The Objectionable doctrine and direct
ly contrary to the Twenty eighth Article, which
ssys 1.-The Lords Supper was not, by Chrisss
ordnance, worshiped
Bishop PhilpOtts agrees with the clergy Of his
diocese WHO have addressed him, that if these
words about Bishop Andrewe'. "a name than which
it would rot be easy to adduce greater 10 the
"whole catalogue Of English divnes," were really
spoken BY the COurt-snd be admits that to hope that
they were net il almost to hope against hope-thsy
amount to condemnation not merely Of Archdea
con Denson and Of Bishop Andre@es, but of himself
snd of them. Not content with repeating for him
self and hs clergy the words Of Au3rewes the shop
of Exeter proceeds to set forth bis view of the
case in the following terms which seem to be about
as Gear AID distinct the nature Of the case will
admit Of, and to which We are no. sure that
the most orthodox Roman Catholic would deen
il necessary to object. Add yet the Bishop insists
that they do not involve assent on his part to the
doctrinal statement set forth by the deposed Arch
deacoD:
That the body and lood Of Czrist are really and
tlecialy prtsen. IN the Holy Eucharist most entirely
believe; end il saw that the Judgment In the late
cause denied that great truth, there is no language
however strong, IL which, wltsout waiting for the
result OF the appeal l wOul9 not join tue sturdies
among You in reprobattDg such contradiction To the
p ain teaching OF our Church. For rejoice 10 know
that cur Church, in her HCnlies aud In the Prayer
Book, especially in The Order for Holy Com nunijn
and in the Catecbism, which 10 the manual Of every
c;uIchmAns belief proceeds on the belief that CSfls
is REILLY present 10 Supper as principle, an axJm
too Gear and too secred 10 be questioned; nsy, re-
ioce TO krow that the Articles, which have beec
recently 60 much discussed, recognize this principle
by sffiTmirg that in the Supper the body Of CHRIS.
given without sby OF that limitation or qualification
vi ilh ia spoken Of in respect 70 receiSing-giyea -
al whether TO life or to condemnation bat given
only in heavenly and spiritual msnper What The
real presence Of Cmsfs body go given is, Wha' tina.
ceesis0 spritualis ratio in which It Ia given, taken
al ee.eDi whether it he not presence altogether
svi geheyis-s presence which 20 tongue of man Gao
doscribe no intellect Of msn can eompreheod-are
question: which submit TO the s0ber-minced-i will
Let coy 10 be determined bu. 10 be pondered with
and reverence and humble thsnkfulness."
But though Bishop Phillpotts fully agrees with his
clergy in condemniDg the apparent result to which
tie Court arrived, be does not .hare all their alarm
as to the possible or probable result. In the frst
place. he is not clear that the Court Whist i.
says He is wiling to hope, though almost against
hope, that they do not In the next place, he hopes
that the whole procedure may on the appeal oe
upset on some technical point, feeling quite sure
that if TIE judgment shall become legally defunc.,
there is 10 moral vitality in it TO survve its legal
existence, Thirdly, he exptc..s that if maintained