The Sun.
London, England, 1852-04-22 00:00:00

The Heck Stakas of 1 sthr. eitat,7witfi added, one
mile, Was were in two beats'by Ceritb, 9st (Lowe), beat-
leg2 PrOenc.., Ir, 5.',3; I,l,Roa:er, 11 -,,t 51b; Hamm
x
Scaru, 9st llh; awl Little Peter, llzt 11b.
The hurdle St'ikos of sovs. each,
and 10 added, two
milts; over five, hurdles (9 Subs.); was won easily by
Mr. Laud's Prospect, aged (151.), (J. Ablett), beating
Cigar, Brunette. Theßoarer, Ktmber, and Banker.
sThe Beaten Handicap was won by Good-for.Notbing,
lOst 101 b, f
beating Haruca Searum, 10it Salop, 11st, and
tWO °then;

I Mr. Bennett to the benefice of St. Paul's, Knightsbridge.
I The consequences of that institution were that those opi-
. nions and ooctrines of which the Bishop had timely ware-
ing were spread and propagated by Mr. Beanett and his
curates in the most influential auri powerfal parish of
London;—that step by. step Mr. Bennett advanced in
the practices and'teaching of what he would call the
church universal, but of what we know to be that com-
munion of Rome from which the people and Church of
Eugland separated, three centuries ago, establishing, as
'every nation or body in a nation has is right to, a
Church of its own;—that monastic institutions were in-
troduced into Belgravia, carrying (as in Miss Law's
case) dismay and bitter grief into the bosom of families;
—that a church, St. Barnabas, was erected to cele-
brate and extend these suceesses;—that so papistical
were its services that' a mob rose against it;—and that
the Bishop of London, yielding to. the iefluence of po-
pular tumults, compelled Islr. Bennett, in 1850, after
seven years' endurance.: of his nnfaithfuluess, to
resign all - his -preferments in • the diocese of '
London. Meanwhile Mr. Bennett had printed forms
of prayers, published books, and issued sermons, in,
which he defended all his acts and opinions; justi-
fying auricular confession,' intercession to saints, the au:-
thority of the Church so-ealled universal over human
conscience, repudiating and abjuring Protestantism, and
denying that Christianity could be propagated merely
by the agency of the. Holy Scriptures. The universal
feeling of society—uncorrupted by such teaching—was,
on Mr. Bennett's resignation, thankfulness. for having,
however lately or discreditably, got rid of hies. His
friends subscribed money for him and , he went abroad.
He appears to have rested chiefly in Roman Catholic
countries; at Kissingen, in Bavaria, and at Rome. What
he did at the latter is not known; but at Kissingen he
daily attended mass, and consorted with friars and priests,
In doing so he only acted on the rule laid down by Dr.
Phillpotts at the Synod of Exeter, and published to the
world in its acts, viz., that in countries where
there is a branch of " the Church , Catholic,"
however erring and corrupt, there only can a Chris-
tian worship;—a strict logical deduction from the
premise that there is on earth a Church univer-
sal, having a sacrificial and mediatorial priesthood.
Amongst the persons of eminence and power perverted
and led away by Mr. Bennett's system was the patroness
of Frome Selwood; and *hat benefice becoming va-
cant, she, an amiable and excellent but most deluded
woman, presented Mr. Bennett to the Bishop of the
diocese, that he, as Ordinary, might institute Mr. Ben-
nett thereto. The parishioners remonstrated; but her
reply was, that the ant was by her irrevocable. They
turned to the Bishop for protection; he listened at first
to their complaints; but they persisting in their objec-
tions, he instituted Mr. Bennett and closed all correspon-
dence with them. The first remark in this state of facts
relates to the conduct of the Bishop. In England alone,
of countries possessing an established church of the
Protestant communion, the, parishioners have no voice in,
or veto on, the appointment of their minister. And the
reason assigned why they have not such a power is,
that it has been reposed in their bishops to
be exercised by those officers of the church on their
behalf. In the constitution of the En:isle Church,
the bishops are interposed between the full exercise
of the right of patronage by its owner and the people
effected by the exercise. The power of the patron is,
therefore, a qualified one; the bishop for sufficient rea-
-1
sons can defeat its exercise; and those reasons are to be
grounded by the bishop on his regard for the cure of the
parishioners' souls, in conformity with the articles, for-
soutanes, and teaching of the Established .Chureh. It
results teen from these premises, that in the Bishop ot
Bath and Wells the Church has a prelate who regards
the Remanist outcast of the diocese of Londen, the man
who there held and taught all Roman doctrine, and the
traveller who subssquently worshipped daily at Kis-
singen in a mass house, as a proper incumbent. of
Frome. The theory of bishops protecting the parish-
ioners against an improper exercise of patronage does
not, it is clear, work here. And what is really the main
question in the whole ease. Ought parishioners in the
nineteenth century—when it is notorious the episcopate
entertain generally' pretensions which the laity as a body
repudiate and reject—to have no further protection
than their Ordinary's weakness or firmness. And the
value of a public inquiry into the Frome case, as. pro-
' posed by Mr. Herman, would have been inestimable, as
throwing light on the manner in which episcopal
control colludeinwith the power of patronage to force un
parishes ministers against whom the soundest objections
exist. For the other circumstances connected with Mr.
Bennett's institution prove that the forms, certificates,
and requirements of the thirty-eight and forty-ninth
Canons (to which we long ago directed attention, as
bearing on this case), afford very sleeder protection to
parishioners in the present state of the, Cnurch. Mr.
Bennett, though drummed out of the diocese of London,
was at once able to get a certificate of three of its bene-
ficed clergy that he was a faithful minister of the Church;
and this certificate the Bishop of London, who had forced
him out of his diocese, so indorsed as enabled the Bishop
of Bath and Wells to deem that those canons had been
complied with. Hence it is apparent, that where two
bishops are willing, nothing is easier than to elude the
protection intended to be given to the laity by those two
canons. What, therefore, is wanted aro either some
means:of restricting episcopal authority in this respect, or
of reposing some power of self-protection in parishioners
themselves. Secretary Sir John Pekington stated
(without showing) that in this matter the Bishop of Lon-
don's conduct had been blameless; and Mr. Horsman
said the report was that the Bishop had' endorsed the
certificate of his three beneficed clergy that Mr. Bennett
had, during the last three years he was in the diocese,
been n faithful minister of the Church, to the effect that
their signatures wore genuine only. But the practice
under the 49th Canon, is for a bishop to require of his
presentee a bens decessit of his last ordinary. Did Mr.
Bennett carry to Wells such a document from Fulham ?
And if not, why did Dr. Begot,- in this ease, where the

parishionershaat remonstieted, dispense with that doou
went? There is, in the discussion, a hiatus here, which
Dr. Blomfield ought, in mercy to his own reputation, to
supply. Nothing in Mr. Horsman's speech was more
admirable than its comprehensive spirit; he never once
infringed on the principles of toleration. The Church has
always been accustomed to boast of her comprehensive
action; and it used to be said of her, ghat she bad a Cal-
vinistic creed and an Arminian clergy. But those very
words indicate the circle of her comprehension: it has li-
mits; and the complaint against Mr. Bennett is net merely
that he exceeded, but that, in exceeding, he attempted
wholly to destroy those limits. High chnrch men and
low church men, the church can well entertain; and it
will be an evil day for the Establishment, when it is ex-
clusively pOssessed.by any one of the several sects that
now find a home in its folds. But resting within those
bounds, all its members must respect the tenure of its
existence; recognise the Parliamentary action which
gave it birth; admit the power of the Legislature t,o
withdraw what it has given. They must not, protected
in the Church, by the State's authority, conspire to over-
throw the power of the State, and to elevate the Church
to a position independent of, if not co-equal in its own
sphere with, the State; they must not propound views of
a priesthood otherwise than the Church has provided,
functionary only, not mediatorial; and' they must not,
as the Bishops did in this case, stand aloof, as if the
House of Commons were acting ultra vires in presuming
to inquire into the ecclesiastical grievances of the people.
For therein the limits of comprehension will have been
passed, and those of priestly aggression have been en-
tered on.