formed of slabs of stone, fixed, and imbedded in mortar or concrete. My opinion therefore is, that according to the true construction of the rubric, this is not a communion-table within the intent and meaning of the rubric, which meant a wooden table, capable of being removed, and not an immoveable stone table. But it has been argued that as the sacraments of the church and of the minister were to be the same as in the second year of Edward VI., and as stone altars were then in existence in the churches, they ought to remain so at this day. If this argument were to be carried out it would go to show that all communion-tables ought to be removed and altars erected in their stead; and this would be conclusive against the grant of this faculty, which is not for a stone altar, but a communion-table. But, in fact, the altar was not considered as an ornament, but as a parcel of the building itself. Durandus says, "Poro ornamenta ecclesiæ in tribus consistunt; id est, in ornatu ecclesia chori et altarus;" not the altar itself. I am therefore of opinion on this part of the case that I must reverse the sentence pronounced by the Chancellor of the diocese of Ely, and overrule the petition for the faculty in its present form. These observations are applicable to the stone table or altar. A few words will dispose of the other point as to the credence-table. I do not find any sufficient information to enable me to judge when this article was first introduced into the Romish church or into our English churches. It is clear that they were in use at the time of Archbishop Laud and before his time. It is admitted by the learned counsel on both sides that the term is derived from the Italian language; but in Adelung's German Dictionary we have the following definition of the word : Credenzen, verb. reg. act., from the Italian," credenzare," to taste beforehand the meats and drink before they were to be enjoyed by another; an ancient court practice, which was performed by the cupbearers and carvers, who for this reason were also called "credenzer." Hence, also the credenz teller -credence plate on which the cupbearers credenced the wine; and, in general, a plate on which a person offers anything to another: credence tische, credence table, a sideboard, an artificial cupboard with a table, for the purpose of arranging in order and keeping the drinking apparatus therein. In the Greek and Latin churches something of the same kind was in use under another name, as I find from two of the tracts to which I before alluded. The word used to describe it is "po@tric," that is, table of preparation, or proposition, as on it were placed the elements before they were placed on the high altar for consecration. I am of opinion, therefore, that the credence-table must fall under the same principle as the other, as it is immediately connected with the other structure, and does not appear to be required or sanctioned by any law, canon, or constitution. I shall therefore not include that in the faculty. The other items seem proper subjects, and I should not be justified in refusing to grant a faculty for them; and perhaps the court may direct the faculty to pass, if so prayed. But I am clearly of opinion that, in its present state, I am bound to refuse the confirmation of this faculty. With respect to the question of costs, as Mr. Faulkner was obliged to come here as an appellant, and has succeeded in his appeal, I should not do full justice to him if I were not to condemn the respondents in the costs. I therefore reverse the sentence of the court below, and condemn the churchwardens in the costs of the proceedings on the appeal. COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH, TUESDAY, JAN. 28. MR. C. EVANS applied to the Court for a peremptory mandamus to compel the Rev. Mr. Chapman, Vicar of Bassingbourne, to bury the body of a child which has lain unburied since the 17th of February, 1840. It appeared from the statement of the learned counsel, that upon the day which we have mentioned, as well as upon the 26th of May, 1841, the Rev. gentleman in question was requested to "bury" the body of the child, but that upon both occasions he refused to do so, alleging as the reason of the refusal, that the child, not having been baptized by a clergyman of the establishment, but only by a dissenting minister, was not entitled to receive interment in the church-yard. Lord Denman suggested that the refusal was rather a matter for ecclesiastical cognizance. Mr. Evans observed that there were several cases in which this court had a concurrent jurisdiction with the Ecclesiastical Courts, and mentioned an instance, reported in Palmer, in which a mandamus was granted, commanding the Bishop of Exeter to furnish chrysm to the applicants. Mr. Justice Coleridge observed, that the application here was for a mandumus to bury, which it might not be the clergyman's duty to do. A mandamus to command him to read the Burial Service would seem to be the remedy appropriate to the case. Mr. Evans said, that in one case the Judge of the Ecclesiastical Court observed that he should not listen to any application of the word "bury" which did not include the reading of the Burial Service, and would not suppose that there could be any "burial" without it. Upon being asked why the applicant had not brought the case before the Court at an earlier period, the learned counsel observed, that he had waited, in the first instance, until he could see the event of a suit in the Ecclesiastical Court, which involved the same question, and that as soon as that suit was determined against the clergyman in that case, a prosecution of the same nature was commenced, against Mr. Chapman in the Court of Arches; but that Court was of opinion that the notice given to him to bury the child was not sufficient, and the judge thought it his duty in a penal proceeding not to punish him, except upon clear proof that everything proper had been done in order to enable the clergyman to have time for the performance of the duty. Lord Denman said, that the peremptory mandamus would not at all be granted in the first instance, and intimated that the Court might grant a rule to shew cause. A case which had been lying over for five years could not have been considered very pressing by the parties. Mr. Evans observed, that the body was lying in a double coffin in a room occupied by six persons. Lord Denman.-The learned counsel stated that the clergyman had repeatedly declared that he never would bury the child, but the Court thought that this declaration, without an express and recent demand and refusal, was insufficient to entitle the applicant to the rule, which was accordingly refused. CHUR CH MATTERS. THE LATE PROCEEDINGS AT OXFORD. THE proceedings which have lately taken place at the meeting of the Convocation in Oxford, have engaged so much of public attention, that it may not be proper to pass the subject over in silence, though, for many reasons, one would prefer leaving it untouched. For, in truth, so much difference of opinion exists, and so much of party feelings, and personal friendships and dislikes, have unfortunately, and in some measure, perhaps, unavoidably, been mixed up with the questions which came before Convocation, that it is impossible now to take aniy view of the subject which will not offend several persons, who in their own view of it are anything but agreed together. Mr. Ward has, no doubt, a party prepared to go along with him to the full length of his Romanizing theories-Mr. Oakeley, for one, has avowed his entire concurrence with Mr. Ward's theory of subscription. And a considerable number of persons who disapprove of Mr. Ward's book, and perhaps (although not quite so strongly) his notions of subscription also, are yet unwilling to concur in a sentence which seems to convey an opinion injurious to his personal character. The signatures to Dr. Grant's amendment are a plain proof of this. Some few, perhaps, objected also to the tribunal which took cognizance of the question; some to the nature, or severity, or legality of the punishment inflicted on Mr. Ward. Some doubted whether the censure applied with equal justice to all the passages selected from his book. On the whole, there is quite sufficient of discrepancy among the members of Convocation, to render it impossible for one to take any view which will not certainly and unavoidably displease a variety of persons. This must be expected; and if one is to write at all, one must be prepared to annoy some, and to offend others. The question, however, is far too serious and too pressing to be treated as if the object of the sentence passed on Mr. Ward and his book had been either to censure it or to punish him. The Heads of Houses did, undoubtedly, think it necessary to visit him with a punishment of considerable severity, and their proposition has been affirmed by a very considerable majority in the Convocation. But it is plain, the design of putting the proposition in that particular form was not to indulge a vindictive feeling towards Mr. Ward, but, by laying their finger on a particular instance and example, to express more strongly and distinctly that abhorrence with which a non-naturalsense subscription must ever be regarded by right-minded people. If this had been sufficiently understood, the majority would probably have been much greater than it proved to be. Great or small, however, a decided majority of the members of Convocation present have pronounced a most unequivocal opinion as to the immorality of any subscription, except that which assents to the words of the Articles in their natural and grammatical sense. And when the heats of party feeling have subsided, this will be found to have benefited the church in more ways than one. The theory of interpretation and subscription broached by the author of No. 90, and advocated by the party of which he is the leader-Mr. Ward among the rest-does so plainly compromise the character of all who appear to connive at it, that to a by-stander the only wonder is, how it has so long escaped a public and formal condemnation from those who in private have very freely expressed their disapproval. Had the persons who have now come forward to record their opinion done so earlier, it would have been better for the church on many accounts. And it is the more surprising that they did not, because it seemed only natural that the Convocation in the University where this theory of subscription and explanation was broached, should have instantly assembled to record their agreement VOL. XXVII.-March. 1845. with the censure pronounced with such remarkably substantial agreement by the episcopal charges delivered in both countries. It is well, however, that they have done it even now. Of course, in saying this, it is taken for granted that Convocation mean to condemn No. 90, as formally as they have condemned Mr. Ward's book. If they should not, it would be difficult to reconcile their recent proceedings with the commonest principles of honesty and justice; still more difficult to perceive how the condemnation of Mr. Ward could vindicate the character of the University. Justly, indeed, might Mr. Ward complain of being treated with harsh and cruel partiality, if No. 90 were left uncensured and uncondemned. Some persons, however, argue that any sentence of Convocation on a tract published four years ago comes too late. But may it not be asked, on the other hand, for what purpose will such a sentence come too late? Undoubtedly any censure of No. 90 may be too late to effect one object which such a sentence should have effected-namely, to administer a check and caution to those disposed to take its author for their guide and model. And most deeply is it to be deplored that those who are now speaking plainly and publicly, did not do so long ago. Much mischief has been done. Many have been led astray, and a host of small writers have been tormenting the church with their unedifying and mischievous books and pamphlets, who, if they had been forewarned by an immediate condemnation of No. 90, on the spot where it appeared, would probably have been saved from committing themselves to follies, of which one would be glad to hope they will yet be ashamed. But it is not on grounds of expediency one would rest the necessity of promptitude and energy, in banishing and driving away strange and erroneous doctrines. Such promptitude is clearly the duty of all persons entrusted with education. It is at all times their duty to do so at once; and equally obvious is their duty to maintain their position in the confidence and respect of the public. Placed in charge of a most sacred deposit, without that confidence and respect, they cannot execute their trust; and to maintain that confidence and respect, they must not only be jealous for truth and honesty--they must be known to be so. This is the practical question which concerns the whole church, and not whether the Heads of Houses have shaped their censure of Mr. Ward in such a form as to secure the largest possible majority in support of their proposition. Many young persons are every year sent to the universities, to whom classical and mathematical distinction are of very little moment. The value their friends attach to a university education is wholly irrespective of such matters. But has the university any accomplishment or distinction to impart, which their friends and parents are likely for a single moment to compare with the loss and injury they would consider a young person to entertain, by having his notions of truth and honesty confused by the principles and maxims of the Jesuits. And what practical difference there can be between this non-natural system of interpretation and subscription, and the worst contrivances of the Jesuits to perplex and confound men's moral feelings, it is not easy to discover. Supposing it, then, to be too late now to prevent all the mischief which the publi cation of No. 90 was likely to do, it certainly is not too late to endeavourto undo as much of that mischief as can still be undone; and, very specially, to relieve those entrusted with the education of clergymen and gentlemen from the appearance of conniving at such a pernicious system; certainly not too late, to endeavour to save the church from the mischief that must follow from a want of public confidence, in the morality of the principles taught and imbibed in one of her universities. It is self-evident, that no man would or could be trusted, who should avow this non-natural system in his dealings and transactions with his fellow-men. Society would fall to pieces of itself, and crumble to atoms, if such principles should ever come to be generally acted on, or even advocated; for, in truth, the bare advocacy of such a principle must undermine the mutual confidence without which society cannot hold together. Bonds and promissory notes are signed in a natural sense, or else in no sense at all. He who should set them at nought, on the ground that he had signed them in a non-natural sense, would be thought to labour under something more serious than mental obliquity and confusion. This is the common sense of mankind; consequently, if the principle of non-natural subscription (no matter what be the point or the extent of its application) were to be connived at by the university, people would inevitably begin to doubt the wisdom or safety of confiding their children to its charge. For, what can compensate for the loss of honourable and straightforward principle? And how can any man acquire the habit of trifling with truth and integrity, in matters of religion and in the most sacred engagements, and retain delicacy of moral feeling and quickness of moral perception in other matters? It is simply impossible. High time it is, therefore, and, in one sense, it never can be too late, for the university to repudiate such a system of interpretation altogether, and by so doing, replace itself finally in that public confidence, which it can never lose without infinite mischief to the church and the nation. This is not said as if one had any doubt of the heads of the university being thoroughly desirous and determined to do so, but merely to express the necessity of their doing it at once, and, as far as in them lies, setting the question of subscription at rest for ever. There is no argument advanced in favour of this theory of nonnatural subscription, which will not equally serve the purpose of defending an Arian subscription. In fact, this is, in a great measure, a revival of the arguments for Arian subscription in a Romish dress. The same answers will suffice for either.* And, notwithstanding Mr. Oakeley's flimsy and discreditable attempt to make out an historical argument, it is as certain that the Articles do condemn the peculiar doctrines of Rome, as that they condemn the heresy of the Arians. To attempt to prove that the Articles were contrived for the purpose of comprehending Romanists, and enabling them to subscribe them, is such an outrageous insult to common sense, as makes it only an exercise Most readers, it is hoped, are acquainted with Dr. Elrington's admirable and unanswerable Sermon on Subscription. |