The Sun.
London, England, 1838-04-02 00:00:00

PERJURY.

TO THE LORD BISHOP OF EXETER.

MY LORD,— You are styled a Spiritual Peer of Parliament
—but why I am at a loss to discover. Do you sit in the House
of Peers in right of your Bishopric ? I think not—you sit
there, if history series me proper, in right of a Barony attached
to the Bishopric : if such be the case, I contend you have no
right to the assumption of being a spiritual Peer. I however
now address your Lordship as a Civil Officer of the Ecclesi-
astical Department of the State, appointed Overseer or Bishop
of the Clergy in a particular district or diocese—district and
diocese being synonimous terms—an officer created by the
English Parliament. As perhaps you may be disposed to dis-
pute such position, I beg to refer your Lordship to the 28th
Hen. VIII., c. 16, which Act abolishes all archbishoprics, bi-
shoprics, and all other ecclesiastical dignities and incumben-
cies ; and the same Act which destroyed those Romish offices
in England, re-created English archbishoprics, bishoprics, and
ecclesiastical dignities and incumbencies. The bishopric
which you now hold was created by the Act of Parliament re-
ferred to ; therefore I contend that your Lordship holds an
office created by the English Parliament, and as such otlice was
created by Parliament, I contend that such office is a civil offic.,
although your Lordship is directed by statute to perform eccle-
siastical or spiritual:duties. Everything which appertains to the
Church is for the sake of distinction denominated ecclesias-
tical ; but where an Act of Parliament directs you to attend
to specified duties, you act as a civil officer and not a spiritual
one. Your spiritual duties I presume are solely those of offering
up prayers and supplications to our God, and preaching the
Word of God—on that point, my Lord, I shall not dare to at-
tack you, although I may perhaps differ with your Lordship
on some points of doctrine. I beg to say that I never heard a
discourse of your Lordship's without pleasure and delight.
But now my Lord to business—you are perhaps aware that
there is such a statute as " An Act for the Uniformity of
Public Prayers and Administration of Sacraments, and other
rites and ceremonies : and for establishing the Farm of
Making, Ordaining, and Consecrating of Bishops, Priests
and Deacons, in tiie Church of England," passed 14th
Charles 11.. and you will perhaps call to mind the oath which
you took at your consecration as a Bishop, which was as fol-
lows :

" Question put by the Archbishop—
" Will you maintain and set forward, as much as shall lie in
you, quietness, love and peace, among all men ; and such as
be unquiet. disobedient, and criminous within your diocese,
correct and punish according to such authority as you have by
God's Word, and as to you shall be committed by the ordi-
nance of this Realm ?" Which your Lordship ratified by an-
swering, " I will do so, by the help of God." Now has not
the Ordinance of this Realm committed to your authority the
punishment of those who do not obey the Rubrics of the
Common Prayer, and the Act for Uniformity of Public
Prayers? I think you will riot offer a denial. Well, does not
the Act for Uniformity order that the Morning and Evening
Prayers set forth in the Book annexed to such Act, called the
Book of Common Prayer, shall upon every Lord's Day, and
upon all other days, be openly read in every church and chapel
in England ? Does your Lordship enforce that part of the
Act? I do not contend fur the expediency of doing so ; but
this I must say, that I cannot discover where you are given
authority to dispense with the direction of an Act of Parlia-
ment—if the law be inexpedient, let Parliament alter the law.
In " The Order how the rest of the Holy Scriptures is ap-
pointed to be read," I find that " The Old Testament is ap-
pointed for the first Lessons at Morning and Evening
Prayer ; so as the most part thereof will be read every year
once, as in the Calender is appointed. The New Testament
is appointed for the Second Lessons at Morning and Evening
Prayer, and shall be read over every year thrice, besides the Epis-
tles and Gospels." By what right or authority were the Morn-
ing and Evening Prayers omitted this thy in the Church of
the Parish in your diocese in which I reside, and the Les-
sons in the Calender Dictionary, 24th chapter, and Luke 16th
chapter, at Morning Prayer, and 25th Deuteronomy and 4th
Philipians, at Evening Prayer, not read according to the di-
rections of an Act of Parliament, being the Act of Uniformity
of Public Prayer ? If your Lordship has power to dispense
with the authority of that Act of Parliament, where is the sub-
sequent Act giving you that power ? If you cannot point one
out, has your Lordship acted up to the oath taken at your con-
secration?
Gibson, in his " Codix Juris Ecclesiastici Anglicani," Pre-
face XI., remarks, " The Rubrics are well-known to be part
of the statute law of the land, as having been confirmed in
Parliament by the several Acts for Uniformity in the reigns of
of Edward VI., Queen Elisabeth, and Charles ll."—this- your
Lordship, lam sure, will not dispute. Does not the Rubric
above the Litany direct that it shall be read on Wednesdays
and Fridays? Is not your Lordship aware that the Litany is
not read on Wednesdays and Fridays in one-twentieth part of
the churches in your diocese? Does your Lordship attempt to
enforce the reading of it according to the statute law of the
Rubric ?
The following is another Rubric :—" When the Minister
giveth warning for the celebration of the Holy Communion,
after the sermon ended, he shall read the exhortation to the
Communion." Does not your Lordship always read that ex-
hortation before and not after the sermon ended, as directed by
the Act of Parliament? What right has your Lordship to dis-
obey the direction of the Act of Parliament? Is not your
Lordship aware that the clergy invariably do the sane ? Why
does your Lordship, who is the overseer of the clergy, suffer
them to contravene the direction of the Act for Uniformity?
Is not your Lordship aware that any person rising in a Church
or Chapel, during Divine Service, for the purpose of forbid-
ding the banns of marriage, is liable to be proceeded against,
as a brawler, in the Ecclesiastical Court ? I say he is—yet
the clergy invite such interruption by illegally using the word
now—in publishing the banris they say—to those who know
any cause or impediment "ye aro now to declare it." There
is no such word in the Act of Parliament as " now." The
words are "ye are to declare it," and the time of declaring
the knowledge of such cause or just impediment why the par-
ties should not be joined in holy matrimony is stated in a
Rubric, in the form of solemnization of matrimony, thus—" At
which day of marriage, if any man do allege and declare any
impediment why they may not be coupled together in matri-
mony by God's law, or the laws of this realm, and will be
bound, and sufficient sureties with him, to the parties ; or else
put in a caution (to the full value of the charges, as the par.
ties to be married do thereby sustain) to prove his allegation,
then the solemnization shall be deferred until such time as the
trtali be tried." It is illegal to forbid the banns, in the
Church or out of it; the only way legally to stay a marriage
by banns is to attend the Church at the time of ceremony,
and no other—excepting the parties are about to contract a
marriage contrary to another Act of Parliament, of which the
clergyman shall have due notice. But this I persist in—that
forbidding the banns in a Church is an act of brawling, and
the party liable to be punished by Ecclesiastical censure. It
being the duty of the Clergy to read the services according
to the Act of Parliament, why does your Lordship in this case
again suffer them to act contrary to law ?
Now, my Lord, I proceed to the Canons. Is it not, ray
Lord, the practice of the Clergy in your diocese to refuse
baptism in case of a mother presenting herself as a godmother
on such occasions ? What authority have they to refuse ? The
29th Canon says—" No parent shall be urged to be present,
eon be admitted to answer as godfather for his own child."
Here, my Lord, is no restriction in the case of a mother
standing as godmother; yet the clergy persist in refusing
baptism where a mother presents herself as godmother? I
contend such refusal is illegal—that although a father is
forbidden to stand as godfather, yet a mother is allowed by law
to stand as godmother.
You, my Lord, together with your Clergy, are very fasti-
dious about your oath to obey the Canons, and even go so far
as to say that your recognition of an Act of Parliament re-
pealing a Rubric or a Canon, by such Act contradicting a for-
mer Act, is compelling you and themselves to break your and
their oaths ; but do you and they act tip to all those which
are in full play? The 49th Canon says—" Neither the Mi-
nister, Churchwardens, nor any other officers of the Church,
shall suffer any man to preach within their Churches or
Chapels, but such as shall chew their licence to preach." Is
not your Lordship aware that Ministers and Churchwardens
allow strangers to preach in thousands of instances, and never
demand an exhibition of their licences to preach ? Is your
Lordship acting according to your oath, in wilfully allowing
parties to vilify such Canon?
I could, my Lord, go on in this strain to fill a whole news-
paper, but I have instanced enough for my purpose; and you
may be disposed to exclaim—" Is this all you can hatch up
after heading your letter with ' Perjury'—is this your mountain
in labour—is this the mouse which the mountain has brought
forth?" My Lord, I reply you have sworn "to correct and
punish as to who shall be committed by the Ordinance of this
Realm," these who disobey that part of the law which you are
appointed to see fulfilled. These several things that I have
brought forward may appear in themselves trifling things—
but allow me to refer you to the Preface to the Prayer-book.
Read under the article, " Of Ceremonies, why some be abo-
lished, and some retained." " The wilful and contemptuous
transgression and breaking of a common order and discipline
is no small offence before God. Let all things be done among
you, saith St. Paul, in a seemly and due • order ; the appoint-
ment of the which order pertaineth not to private men ; there-
fore no man ought to take in hand, nor presume to appoint
or alter any public or common order in Christ's Church, ex-
cept he be lawfully called and authorized thereunto." Now,
'my Lord, has your Lordship fully enforced the law, which
you have sworn to do ? I shall not pronounce in your case
that which I might perhaps be justified in doing ; but allow
me to ask your Lordship, if a Roman Catholic Bishop were
to neglect a duty which he had sworn he would perform,
would not your Lordship pronounce it " Perjure."
I remain your Lordship's obedient servant,
March 5, 1838. CASTIGATOR.

The Tipperary Free Press brings us the termina-
tion of the assizes at Clonmel, and announces the cheering
fact, that of the immense number against whom the charge of
wilful murder was paraded on the face of the calendar, so truly
described and so well analysed by Judge Moore, not an indi-
vidual has been found guilty of that offence; and the Tories,
who gloated in anticipation over the reeking gibbet, are, alas !
on this occasion, doomed to all the miseries of disappointment.

THE SHERIFF AT HIGH MASS.—On Sunday,
the High Sheriff, W. Blundell, Esq., of Cros ly (who is a
Roman Catholic), attended at St. Nicholas' Chapel, Cop_
peras-hill. High was perforraed. The Sheriff's javeline-
men attended that functionary, and a great many of tha mili-
tary were in attendance. The chapel was crowded, and many
Protestants were present. The High Sheriff sat in the front
seat of the gallery, opposite the altar.—Liverpool Mercury.
Lieutenant Brooks, the unfortunate gentleman ‘v ho
was severely crushed when the collision took place between
the Lucifer steamer and the Westchester, died on Friday
evening, after suffering. much agony by the removal of several
splinters of bone.—Liverpool Mercury.