1860.

LIDDELL

v.

BEAL.

Further

Judgment.

structure of stone used as a Communion Table, in the said Church, or Chapel, together with the cross on or near to the same, and to provide instead thereof a flat, moveable Table of wood; to remove any cover used at the time of proceedings. the ministration of the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper worked or embriodered with lace, or otherwise ornamented, and to provide and substitute a fair white linen cloth without lace, or embroidery, or other ornament to cover the Communion Table at the time of the ministration of the Lord's Supper, and to cause the Ten Commandments to be set up on or against the east end of the said Church, or Chapel, in compliance with the Canon in that case made and provided, thirty days after they shall have been served therewith.

It has been alleged by Mr. Beal in a very temperate argument, and a very sensible one, that these requisitions have not been complied with; at least that some of them have not, because as to some of the requisitions there is not any complaint or question.

The first is the direction 'to remove the structure of stone used as a Communion Table in the said Church, or Chapel.' That has been done; there can be no doubt that that has been obeyed. But the Monition goes on 'together with the Cross at or near the same.'

Now there was formerly a cross which stood upon the stone table, and was, in a sense, at least affixed to it; which was objected to, and, as it appears, properly objected to. The stone table has been altogether removed, and with it the cross; but the cross has been placed in another part of the Church, or Chapel, not in any sense upon the table which has been substituted for the stone table, nor in any sense in communication, or contact, or connection with it. It remains in the church as an ornament of the church, and their Lordships think (if the word may respectfully be applied to such a subject) not an unusual or improper ornament; in no sense remaining there so as to disobey or conflict with the order contained in this Monition.

Their Lordships therefore think that that part of the Monition which directs the structure of stone to be

removed, together with the cross on or near the same, has been obeyed.

It then directs that there shall be provided 'instead thereof a flat, moveable table of wood.' That has been done. It is stated, however, with truth that upon this Table there is placed, and in general stands, a moveable ledge of wood for the purpose of holding the candlesticks and vessels; at least that is the purpose for which it is used. It is, as I have said, not fixed to the Table. If remaining there when the cloth is to be placed upon the Table for the purpose of the administration of the Lord's Supper, as it would interfere with that, it is accordingly removed, and the cloth is placed on the Table, and then the ledge replaced.

It is not shown, and their Lordships think it ought not to be inferred, that there is anything superstitious (if the term may be used) or anything improper in the addition. of that ledge. But if there were, their Lordships are not satisfied that it is within the terms of the Monition, or that the Monition in any sense or respect extends to it. But in whatever way that matter be taken, their Lordships think that neither disobedience nor offence is established with regard to the moveable ledge.

They are then directed 'to remove any cover used at the time of the ministration of the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper worked or embroidered with lace, or otherwise ornamented, and to provide or substitute a fair white linen cloth, without lace or embroidery, or other ornament, to cover the Communion Table at the time of the ministration of the Lord's Supper. That has been done, because, as has already been said, though the ledge would interfere with the covering of the Table completely if the ledge remained, the removing of the ledge for the purpose prevents any such difficulty or objection.

They are further directed to cause the Ten Commandments to be set up on or against the east end of the Church, or Chapel,' in compliance with the Canon in that case made and provided. The whole of that part of the sentence must of course be taken together, and when we refer to

1860.

LIDDELL

v.

BEAL.

Further proceedings. Judgment.

1860.

LIDDELL

v.

BEAL.

Further proceedings. Judgment.

the Canon on the subject (which is the 82nd Canon) we find it its thus expressed :— That the Ten Commandents be set up upon the east end of every Church, or Chapel, where the people may best see and read the same.' Now it appears upon the evidence, and their Lordships are satisfied that, if this were literally complied with in the manner contended for, from the nature of the screen, and the opening in the screen, which has not been directed to be removed, the people assembled could not see or read the Ten Commandments so set up; and their Lordships are of opinion, from the evidence before them, that the Ten Commandments are set up as nearly according to the Canon as the nature of the structure will permit; and they think, therefore, that neither disobedience, nor irregularity, nor evasion has been established with respect to the circumstance; and as to the letters in which the Ten Commandments are written, a facsimile of the writing having been laid before us, their Lordships are of opinion that there is no substantial difficulty in the way of reading the letters which have been used; the letters (which are now not uncommon) can very easily be deciphered and understood by anyone capable of reading ordinary writing or printing, which in ordinary cases is used.

Their Lordships are of opinion, therefore, that no disobedience, no impropriety, no irregularity has been established; and that the present application therefore fails. But the application has been conducted temperately and properly, and their Lordships do not think it necessary to give any direction as to costs.]

[Reported in 14 Moore's Privy Council Reports.]

On Appeal from the Arches Court of Canterbury.

Proceedings against a Clerk in Holy Orders under the Church Discipline Act, 3rd and 4th Vic., c. 86., for publishing heretical doctrines in contravention and violation of the Articles of Religion and Formularies of the Church of England, are of a criminal nature, and it is necessary that the accusation should be stated with precision and distinctness in the pleadings.

The Articles of Charge must (1) distinctly state the opinions which the Clerk has advisedly maintained, and must set forth the passages of the work in which those opinions are stated; and (2) such Articles must specify the doctrines of the Church, which the opinions of the Clerk are alleged to have contravened, and the particular Articles of Religion and the Formularies which contain such doctrines.

The Accuser is for the purpose of the Charge con

* Present: The Lord Chancellor (Westbury); the Archbishop of Canterbury (Dr. Longley); the Archbishop of York (Dr. Thomson); the Bishop of London (Dr. Tait); Lord Cranworth, Lord Chelmsford, and Lord Kingsdown.

G

fined to the Charges, which are included and set out in the Articles of Charge as the matter of accusation; but it is competent to the Accused to explain from the rest of his work, from which the passages libelled are extracted, the sense or meaning of any passage or word that is challenged by the Accuser.

With respect to the legal tests of doctrine in the Church of England, by the application of which the Judicial Committee, or the Appellate Court is to try the soundness of the passages libelled, it is the province of that Court, on the one hand, to ascertain the true construction of the Articles of Religion and Formularies referred to in each charge, according to the legal rules for the interpretation of Statutes and written instruments; and, on the other hand, to ascertain the plain grammatical meaning of the passages which are charged as being contrary to, or inconsistent with, the doctrines of the Church.

Matters of doctrine in which the Church has prescribed no rule may be discussed without penal consequences; and no rule is to be ascribed to the Church, which is not found expressly and distinctly stated, or which is not plainly involved in, or to be collected from, the written law of the Church.

In the eleventh Article of Religion it is laid down that we are accounted righteous before God only for the merits of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, and not for our own works or deservings.' Held, that as the Article was wholly silent as to the merits of Jesus Christ being transferred to us, and asserts only that we are justified for the merits of Jesus Christ our Saviour by faith, and by faith alone, that it was not penal in a Clergyman to speak of merit by transfer as a fiction,' however unseemly that word may be when used in connection with such a subject.

In an Article against a Clergyman it was charged that it was a contradiction of the doctrine of the Church of England as laid down in the 6th and 20th Articles of Religion, the Nicene Creed, and in the Ordination Service of Priests to affirm that any part of the Canonical Books of the Old and New Testament upon any subject whatever, however unconnected with religious faith, or moral duty, was not written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. Held, that the charge that every part of the Scriptures was written under