The refusal of the Queen's Bench to compel the present
Bishop of London to inquire into the doctrine of one of Mr. Bennetta books on the Eucharist has beep followed up by a refusal of the Dean of Arches (Sir R. l'hillinaore) to accept the letters of request issued to him by the Bishop of Bath and Wells to inquire uader the provisions of the Clergy Discipline Act into the orthodoq of the doctrine of others of Mr. liennett'e writings. Sir 11. Phillimore maintained that the Court of Arches was in the main A Court of Appeal, that when a bishop's Court remitted to bins letters of request to try a case which had not been tried in the Court below, he was not bound to accept that request, but had s real discretion as to whether he would accept it or not, and that he ought only to accept it for the public benefit, as, for example, in a case of alleged immorality against a clergyman, where it was manifestly advantageous that a Court of law accustoraed to the oral examination of witnesses should deal with the caseIn this case, however, on a matter of "alleged heresy connected with some of the most awful mysteries of our religion," it would have been a great advantage to him to have the judgment of the lower Court before him, before trying it himself. It was a case of all others, "fitted for the oognisance and decision of the Bishop of the diocese." Accordingly, he refused the letters of request, and virtually told the Bishop of Bath and Wells he must look into the heresy himself first, if he wished it looked into at all.
Previous page
