Weekly expositor. (Brockway Centre, Mich.) 1882-1894, 1888-06-07
TO ENFORCE CHURCH DISCIPLINE.
Provisions OF n Bill Prepared by the
Archbishop or Canterbury.

In the Archbishop of Canterbur,'s scheme
for better enforcing church discipline, provis-
ion Is made foe abolshlng the writ dc con.
furnace capiendo, under which Mr. Bell Cox
aud few other clergymen have been impris-
oncd, says The LOHdOn Standard. The pro.
ccdure proposed to be substituted for the case
of clergyman who disobeys the order of
court is this: II clergyman who has been
inhibited be bishop or sentenced by an &C.
clesiastlcal court to suspension, deprivation,
or deposition from the ministry attempts to
perform divine service or TO act in the church
IN contraven;ion OF his sentence he is to be
regarded as disturbing public worship" aud
punishable accordingly; and he may be re-
moved by a constable AMI IL necessary, with
force. Moreover, in every case OF suspension
clergyman is not to be admitted to his office
until he has produced to the court evidence
OF good conduct during bis term of suspension.
One lettering Influence that is proposed is
that to a sentence OF suspension may be added
condition that he must not reside in his
bencfce or within certain distance Of 1t on
pain OF deprivation. 1t is also proposed to re-
peal the seventh section OF the public worship
regulation act under which Lord Pennance
was appointed. In lieu Of this it is merely
left open to the archbishop to appoint the
same persons as official principals OF their re-
Ispectve provinces. However, each official
principal Is In future to be re.
quired to subscribe to the thlrty.nne arti-
cles, and his appointment must be confirmed
by The dean and chapter of the metropolitan
church. An altogether new mode OF proceed
ing is proposed in the archbishop's bill with
respect to cergyman's offenses against NOR
ality, aud oifenscs punishable with hard la.
Dor, and with respect TO neglect OF duty, from
which last expression are specially excluded
matters of doctrine or ritual. On complaint
being made the bishop will decide whether IL
ought to be entertained. III he thinks it
ought to be- he will hear it himself and deter
mine finally, should both parties assent.
Should they not, the complainant will be re-
mitted to the diocesan court where It will be
tried either by the chancellor or, where the
bishop having regard to gravity of the case
directs IT. by the bishop, with two or more
legal assessors An opportunity is, however,
given to the clergyman of demanding trial
by the chancellor and four standing com
missionersp-the archdeacouN benefited
clergyman, elected by the benefited clergy
men of the arcbdenconrY, canon or pre-
bendary elected by the chapter, and layman
nominated by the chairman OF quarter ses-
sions. An appeal is allowed from the do
cesar court To the provincial court on ques-
lions of law, and n further appeal TO the
privy council, but for a complainant's further
appeal the leave of the provincial court Is
necessary. One noticeable provision OF the
bill is that which saws that when a clergyman
has been found guilty by civil court OF an
offense against morality or an offense punish.
able with imprisonment with hard labor he
NAV be summoned by the diocesan court
which will hear what he has TO say in extenu-
alton of his offensc, and may then pronounce
sentence of admonitiop, or suspension, or de.
privation, etc