The Stourbridge Observer, Cradley Heath, Halesowen & District Chronicle.
Stourbridge, West Midlands, England, 1870-04-02 00:00:00

SHEPPARD v. BENNETT."

The hearing of the above case, an appeal from the Court of
Arches, commenced last Saturday morning, before the Judi-
cial Committee of the Privy Council. The Lord Chancellor,
the Archbishop of York, the bishop of London, Lord Justice
Gifford, and Sir Joseph Napier were present.

-
The respondent, the Rev. William James Early
Bennett, vicar of Frome Selwood, Somersetsffire, is
charged with having offended against the laws eccles
Biastical by having caused to be printed and published
within the diocese of London works in which he
advisedly maintains or affirms doctrine directly con-
trary to or repugnant from the articles and formularies
of the Church of England, the said works being
entitled respectively, "Some Results of the Tractarian
Movement of 1833," forming one of the essays in "The
Church and the World," and "A Plea for Toleration
in the Church of England in a Letter to the Rev. E.
B. Pusey. Second and Third Editions." 'This charge
came before the Arches Court by letters of request
from the late Bishop of Bath and Wells, the appel-
lant, one of the respondent's parishioners, being the
promoter of the office of the judge. The late Bishop
of I.ondon, in whose diocese the above works were
published, had previously, under the provisions of the
Church Discipline Act, appointed a Commission to
inquire into the charges, and the Commissioners
reported that there was sufficient prima facie
ground for taking further proceedings. The let-
ters of request set out at great length a number of
passages from the above works. The citation, served
on the respondent, summoning him to answer in the
Arches Court, incorporated the letters of request The
respondent did not appear to the citation, and in
default of appearance articles were filed. The articles
contained further passages than those in the letters of
request. Application was then made for the admission
of the articles to proof, but the Dean of Arches (Sir It.
Phillimore) on October the 30th, 1869, decided that the
articles must be reformed by striking out all that con.
tamed the charge against the respondent of maintain-
ing the doctrine that "the wicked eat the body of
Christ in the use of the Lord's Supper," in contraven-
tion of the Twenty-ninth Article of Religion. The
learned Dean so decided on the ground that the added
passages in the articles contained the above charge, and
that this was separate i.sl distincs from the charges
brought before the Commission and made in the letters
of request, those charges being that the respondent
maintained: 1. The actual presence of our Lord in the
sacrament. 2. The visible presence of our Lord upon
the altar of the Holy Communion. 3. That there is a
sacrifice at the time of the celebration of the Eucharist.
4. That adoration or worship is due to the consecrated
elements. This decision on the form of the articles is
the subject of the present appeaL
Mr. A. J. Stephens, Q. C. (with whom were Dr.
Tristram, Mr. Shaw, and Mr. Cowie) for theappellant,
argued that the jurisdiction of the Arches Court was
not founded on the Commissioners' report, but on the
letters of request. And even were it otherwise, the
charges brought before the commission were sub-
stantially the same as those now preferred. The
letters of request slid set out passages from the works
complained of, but the charges were not thereby
limited. For the essence of the charge was the publi-
cation of the works, and the setting out passages was
quite optionaL The articles might contain any pas-
sages whatever from the works, and any charges which
such passages would support might be founded on
them. Mr. Stephens then reviewed and criticised the
judgment of the court below, and cited a number of
authorities in support of his position that the Dean of
Arches ought to have admitted the articles to proof in
their present form. The doctrine of the reception of
the Eucharist by the wicked was subordinate to that
of the Beal Presence in the Sacrament. The two
doctrines could not be separated, and the respondent
in maintaining the latter had inferentially maintained
the former also. The respondent had also referred
with approval to a protest, signed by himself, against
the Bath judgment, and to works of Archdeacon
Denison and Dr. Pusey where this doctrine of the
reception by the wicked was distinctly maintained.
Such a reference was, in fact, an adoption by the re-
spondent of this doctrine.
Dr. Tristram f aid,he thought it unnecessary to address
their lordships.
Their lordships then considered for a short time,
after which—
. . . .

The Lord Chancellor, delivering the judgment of
the
,Committee, said

The judgment of the Dean of Arches rested on two grounds.
The first ground was that the particular charge of heresy,
vit, the reception of the Eucharist by the wicked, was not
preferred before the Commissioners, nor mentioned in the
letters of request or citation ; and that, therefore, the
passages relating to this charge most be struck out. Their
lordships could net so far agree with the learned Dean. The
object of the inquiry by the Commissioners was merely to
advise the bishop as to whether there was ground for taking
further proceedings. It was not necessary to set out passages,
either laths letters of request or citation. The letters of
request prayed merely an inquiry whether heresy had been
maintained by the respondent in certain works. The objoct
of the citation was merely to inform the respondent of the
works, the publication of which was complained of. These
requirements had been complied with, and their lordships
could not on the above ground agree with the Dean of
Arches. But on the second ground of the judgment below
was that in & criminal proceeding like the present it was
necessary to set out In the articles passages from the re-
spondent's works distinctly maintaining the particolar
doctrine alleged to be heresy, and that this had rot been
done here with reference to the doctrine of the reception of
the Eucharist by the wicked. Their lordships here must
agree with the decision of the Dean. The passages set out
In the articles only showed that the respondent approved
generally certain works of Archdeacon Denison and Dr.
Posey in which this doctrine was said to be maintained. But
this was not sufficient unless the respondent had in some
passage of the works complained of expressed specifically
his approval of that doctrine. Their lordships would there-
fore recommend her Majesty that the judgment of the Court
below be affirmed.
_ _

As the respondent had not appeared no order as to
coats could be made in his favour.