as he deceives the world, but in his far deeper skill and malignity as he at once mimics and counterworks the works of Christ."

"It is further noticeable, with what remarkable distinctness the doctrine concerning Satan and his agency, his active hostility to the blessedness of man, of which there is so little in the Old Testament, comes out in our Lord's teaching in the New, as v. 19, then cometh the wicked one,' and here' the enemy that sowed them is the devil.'"

"It was not till the Son of Man actually appeared on the stage of the world that Satan came distinctly forward upon it also; but the instant that the Saviour opens his ministry for the setting up of the Kingdom of God, at the same instant Satan starts forward as the hinderer and adversary of it, the tempter of the Son of Man."” 1

This seems to be the teaching of the Prayer-Book, as is further shown in the following passages:

Epistle for the Sixth Sunday after the Epiphany." He that committeth sin is of the devil, for the devil sinneth from the beginning."

"For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that he might destroy the works of the devil."-1 St. John iii. 8.

First Sunday in Lent.-The whole Gospel of St. Matthew iv. 1-12, relating to Our Lord being " tempted of the devil." Wednesday before Easter.-The Gospel, St. Luke xxii. 3. "Then entered Satan into Judas surnamed Iscariot."

Third Sunday after Trinity.-The Epistle, 1 St. Peter v. 8. "Be sober, be vigilant; because your adversary the devil as a roaring lion walketh about seeking whom he may devour."

Nineteenth Sunday after Trinity.—The Epistle, Ephesians iv. 27. "Neither give place to the devil."

11.

Twenty-first Sunday after Trinity.—The Epistle, Ephesians vi. That ye may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil.” St. Michael and All Angels.-For the Epistle, Revelations xii. ver. 9. "And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent called the devil and Satan." Verse 12, "the devil is

come down unto you having great wrath."

III. In the particular Services I find the following passages:

"I demand therefore,

Baptismal Service.

"Dost thou, in the name of this child, renounce the devil and all his works

1 Notes on the Parables, by R. C. Trench; Parable II., The Tares, pp. 68, 69, 70.

"Grant that he may have power and strength to have victory, and to triumph against the devil, the world, and the flesh."

"We receive this child into the congregation of Christ's flock, and do sign him with the sign of the Cross, in token that hereafter he shall not be ashamed to confess the faith of Christ crucified, and manfully to fight under his banner against sin, the world, and the devil."

Catechism.

Answer." First, that I shall renounce the devil and all his works."

Collect. (6

Visitation of the Sick.

Renew in him, most loving Father, whatsoever hath been decayed by the fraud and malice of the devil."

Consecration of an Archbishop or Bishop.

The Epistle, 1 Timothy iii. 6.-" Not a novice, lest being lifted up with pride he fall into the condemnation of the devil . . . lest he fall into reproach and the snare of the devil.”

Lastly, I will again cite what, with reference to this particular suit, is a passage of some importance, and has been already mentioned for another purpose. It is taken from an Exhortation in the Holy Communion service the Sunday before the celebration.

"Therefore, if any of you be a blasphemer of God, an hinderer or slanderer of His Word, an adulterer, or be in malice, or envy, or in any other grievous crime, repent you of your sins, or else come not to that Holy Table, lest, after the taking of that Holy Sacrament, the devil enter into you as he entered into Judas, and fill you full of all iniquities and bring you to destruction, both of body and soul."

It is remarkable that this striking passage is to be found in both the Prayer-Books of Edward the Sixth (1549, 1552), and also in the Order of the Communion of 1548, which is as follows:

If a man be in any notable crime, " let him awhile bewail his sins and not come to this Holy Table, lest, after the taking of this most blessed bread, the devil enter into him as he did into Judas, to fulfil in him all iniquity, and to bring him to destruction, both of body and soul." i

I must not omit reference to a very important formulary of the Church. In the Thirty-nine Articles there is this passage; it occurs in the 17th Article :— "For curious and carnal persons, 1 Cardwell, Liturgies of Edward VI., pp. 429, 430,

lacking the Spirit of Christ, to have continually before their eyes the sentence of God's predestination, is a most dangerous downfall, whereby the devil doth thrust them either into desperation or into wretchlessness of most unclean living, no less perilous than desperation."

I think it unnecessary to travel further into a statement of the other passages of Scripture, grave and important as some of them are, which do not immediately relate to the eternity of punishment or the existence of the devil, and which are rejected by the promoter; because I am of opinion that the avowed and persistent denial of the existence and personality of the devil did, according to the law of the Church, as expressed in her Canons and Rubric, constitute the promoter "an evil liver,” and " a depraver of the Book of Common Prayer and administration of the Sacraments," in such sense as to warrant the defendant in refusing to administer the Holy Communion to him, until he disavowed or withdrew his avowal of this heretical opinion; and that the same consideration applies to the absolute denial by the promoter of the doctrine of the eternity of punishment, and of course still more to the denial of all punishment for sin in a future state, which is the legitimate consequence of his deliberate exclusion of the passages of Scripture referring to such punishment.

This disqualification of the promoter to receive the Holy Communion is not in my judgment removed either by the fact that he has published a volume of prayers taken from our Liturgy, or that he has expressed his belief in the inspiration of Holy Scripture. Nor do I stop to consider how such a declaration can be reconciled with his excision of those passages in Scripture to which I have referred.

I must consider, therefore, that the second as well as the first defence is established, and I must dismiss this suit with costs.

KEET v. SMITH AND OTHERS.

It is not expedient that a tombstone should be erected in the churchyard of a parish with an inscription describing the deceased person as "the daughter of the Rev. A. B., Wesleyan Minister" where the incumbent refuses his consent to such an inscription, and the Bishop of the diocese disapproves of it.

Law as to Faculties considered.

A Faculty to erect such a tombstone refused.

THIS case was only argued on one side, that of the applicant for the Faculty. I gave judgment in it on the 31st of July 1875.

An appeal has been asserted, and is still pending.

The case is reported in the Law Reports, 4 Admiralty and Ecclesiastical, page 398.

JUDGMENT. This is an appeal from the Consistory of Lin

coln.

The subject of the appeal is the refusal of that Court to grant a faculty for the erection of a tombstone containing the following inscription:-" In loving memory of Annie Augusta Keet, the younger daughter of the Rev. H. Keet, Wesleyan Minister, who died at Ouston Ferry, May 11, 1874, aged seven years and nine months.—' Safe sheltered from the storms of life.""

It appears that the inscription " Wesleyan Minister" was not objected to by the incumbent, and was allowed by the Court. The prefix "Reverend " was objected to by the incumbent, and disallowed by the Court.

I must express regret that the petitioner should not have been content with the description "Wesleyan Minister;" it is strictly speaking his accurate description as "George Edward Smith, clerk or vicar," would be, strictly speaking, the accurate description of the incumbent.

The aspect of the question in this Court is slightly varied from that which it assumed in the Court below.

The Chancellor of Lincoln declined to allow the issue of a citation to the incumbent, calling upon him to show cause why the faculty prayed should not be granted. In this Court, however, that citation has, according to its usual practice, already issued, and has been served upon the incumbent, and he has not appeared in answer to the citation; but he has not withdrawn his opposition to it.

The law as to the rights of the incumbent and parishioners with respect to grave-stones in churchyards is often but partially understood and carelessly stated. I will endeavour to lay it down correctly.

The churchyard is the freehold of the incumbent, subject to the right of the parishioner or stranger happening to die in the parish, to simple interment, but to no more. Indeed, the incumbent has the right to pasture animals which do not injure the bodies interred in the churchyard; and every gravestone, of course, interferes with that pasturage.

The Incumbent for this, as well as for other more importart reasons, has a primâ facie right to prohibit altogether the placing of any grave-stone, or to permit it upon proper conditions, such as those which relate to the size and character of the stone, the legality or propriety of the inscription upon it, or the payment of a proper fee. Usage, indeed, has much favoured the placing of such stones, and as a general rule, the incumbent permits them; while the exercise of his right of refusal has become, or perhaps always was, subject to the control of the Ordinary.

None of my predecessors was, I think, better acquainted with the mixed law and practice of the Ecclesiastical Courts in cases of this description than Sir Herbert Jenner Fust. In the important case of Breeks v. Woolfrey1 he drew a clear distinction between the general right of the incumbent to refuse permission to place a grave-stone, and his right to refuse such permission on the ground that the inscription upon it was contrary to law; and while upon the latter special ground he overruled the refusal of the incumbent, he was careful to show no interference with the right of the incumbent to refuse, according to the general law, his consent.

And here I should observe that the two legal positions, namely, that simple interment is a matter of right, and the placing a grave-stone a matter of permission, are in no way affected by the fact to which I was referred, and which is unfortunately too true, that inscriptions of an improper, ludicrous, and heathen character are to be found in some of our churches and churchyards. Such a fact only proves the culpable indifference and carelessness in this respect of those who had 1 Curteis's Rep., p. 80. 2 D