The Louisiana Democrat. [volume] (Alexandria, La.) 1845-1918, 1868-05-27
A Trial for Heresy.
From the London Times, 18th ult.]

(EIOIu tuO lOuuUi Aa'A'SS} fE'7- y
A case Of heresy in the Queens Bench,
which we report to-day, may sound at first.
somewhat anomalous. It is, however,
simple illustration Of the essential English
principal that the clergy Of the National
Church are amenable, in the exercise OF
their spiritual functions, not merely to &c,
clesiastical authority, but to the laws OF
the land. The law assigns their duties ana
maintains their privileges; and nothing,
therefore, can be more proper than that 0
court of law should have authority to re-
quire that those duties should be observed.
The circumstance that, as rule, ecclesi-
astical cases come in the first instance be-
fore an Episcopal court has tended, per-
haps, to obscure this principal, and has
made the ultimate jurisdiction OF the Privy
Council appear in the light OF an anomaly
Mr.. Mackonochie. in the letter he ad
dressed to the Bishop Of London after the
recent judgment, expressed a greater feadi-
ness to acquiesce in the decision since it
had been procured id an ecclesiastical Od
not in civil court. But, in fact, Dr. Phil
limore's judgment, wherever pronounced.
relied wholly for its efficacy upon civil au-
thority, for the act upon which the juda-
ment proceeded was Parliamentary enact
ment, and nothing but the authority OF
Parliament gave the Bishop of Loneon any
right or control over the Church DIST
Alban, In Holborn. Moreover, it's we'll
worth observing that the application in
that instance, as well as in the case we
repeat to-day, was made by laymen, in the
maintenance oflay rights. The courts are
invoked. not for the purpose OF pronornc-
ing on abstract points Of doctrine or rlt-
|ual, but for the purpose Of protecting Eng.
lish laymen in the enjoyment. OF their legal
privileges. The clergy in this country are
invested with certain rights and endow-
ments, in return for which laymen my re-
ouire from them the performance OF certain
duties, according to certain stipulated con-
ditinns.
Every En9lishman has a right to have
Divine worship performed in his parish
church according to the Book OF Common
Prayer, and to hear public instruction ac-
cording to the doctrines laid down in the
Formularies. If the directions oftbe Book
of Common Prayer are violated. or the For
mularies are disregarded in preaching, he
is aggrieved in one Of his public rights
Heapplies, therefore very ftly to court
of law for redress. That is the simple
meaning of these prosecutions, and nothing
can be more just or more in accordance
with common sense. So long as we have
a body of men among us endowed with
public funds, for the purposes of public re-
ligious instruction, it is obviously reasona-
BILE that such instruction should be more or
less defined. and that the instructors should
be held to their agreement.
The form. then, Of this application is
perfectly natural. It is not for beresy-in
the abstract, but for heresy against the law
of England, that the authority of the court
is appealed to. The Queens Bench may
not be the fittest court to consider the de-
tails Of q theological Indictment, but it is a
very fit court to require that such an in
dictment should be heard-in other words
to insist on the law being put in execution
by the competent authorities. This repre-
sents the substance ofthe application made
yesterday. The case will possess unusual
interest both ID its technical and its sub
stantial merits. The ultimate object is to
try the question whether the doctrines
taught by the extreme Ritualsts on thesub-
| ject of the Real Presence in the Holy Com
munion be admissible within the Church Of
England.