The weekly democratic statesman. [volume] (Austin, Tex.) 1871-1883, 1875-08-26

mae .JlIed that he could not profess o be-
lieve what he felt 70 be false. ard sHas II
Mr.. Cook refused II give him the commn-
MON, be should sue him for damas . NJ.
Cook did refuse, and Mr.. Jenkins brought
his action. The case was tined before Or
Robert PhiIliniore, Dean of the Court of
/ Arches. and Mr.. Cook set up two lines OF
defense. In the first he pleaded that the
Iaws az the church made il his duty TO IRE
neIr from the holy communion persons
whom he believed to be disqualified, and
tnat. having done this, his further
d nv 10 refer the case T. 40 bishop, tius
deyoIving the responsibilit. upcn his supe-
r.or. He showed that in tbs case he had
done this, and that TIE bishop Lad sus
tanned him. But he also pleaded II his de
Tense that, bishop or no bishop, he was
justified as regarding as ga deprayer and
an evil liver any one who denied the per
sonality of the devil aud the eternity of
punishment; and that, as no ''evilliver and
depraver" could approsch the holy table.
he was not only authorized, but compelled
TO repel Mr. Jenkins The Dean of Arches
sustained this plea. He declared that 'the
absolute denial of the eternity of punish
ment is at variance with the plain teaching
Of the Church of England expressed in her
formularies and especially in the communion
service and in the Athanasian creed" and
that We cannot reject the doctrine of the
personality of the devil, '.unless we impute
error and deceit to the writers of the New
Testament. This decision has caused
much uncomfortable excitement amopg the
laxer members OF the Church in England,
and the Times expresses the hope that the
judicial committe may find it within their
province" TO declare that there is no devil
and no hell, or that at least no one need be-
lieve that either of these uncomfortable
things exist. The Tunes, commenting on
the decision, says:
''The Dean OF Arches, with that archeo-
logical and theological proclivity which has
recently elected Mr.. Gladstone's admira-
ton, goes on to pronounce that the abso-
/ lutte denial of the eternity of punishment is
at variance with the plain teaching of the
Church of England, expressed In her for
mulaues, and especially in the communion
service and the Athanasian creed Similar
ly, he takes occasion to maintain that we
must receive tie doctrine of the personality
of the devil, unless we Impute error and
deceit to the New Testament There are
a good many differences involved in this
proposition which do not seem quite rele-
want to the simpler question, whether an
acceptance OF the doctrine is a necessary
legal qualification for lay communion In the
Church of England. But, at all events, the
Dean of Arches has seized this opportunity
to declare that the denial of the eternity Of
punishment or of the personality of the
evil one is sufficient to Justify clergyman
in refusing the holy communion to parish
Toner. AS we stated at the outset, this is a
somewhat startling conclusion. Doubtless
it would be absurd if no disbelief were held
| to disqualify man from communion with a
church which is founded upon a distinct
confession of faith. But it will not have
been forgotten that in recent mem orable
trial the Judicial committee refused to con-
denim a clergyman for opinions which were
| generally considered tantamount to denial
of the eternity of punishment. 1t would be
very strange if stricter standard of Ortho-
doxy were established for laymen than for
clergymen. 1t is, moreover, not merely the
obligation to believe this particular doc
trlne, but the general extension of their
obligations thus foreshadowed, which is
calculated to alarm the laity. For the sake
of the peace of tne church it is to be hoped
that the Judicial committee may find it, on
| this occasion, within their province to dis
tinguish from the law of the Church OF
England the excursions with the dean and
arches appears so singularly qualified to
make into the regions of abstract theologi-
cal dogma"