The Sun.
London, England, 1870-06-16 00:00:00

THE PROSECUTION OF MR BENNETT.

The case of " Sheppard v. Bennett," which involved
the prosecution of the vicar of Frome for the propagation
of tenets contrary to the laws of the Church of England,
came on to-day in the Court of Arches. Dr. Stephens,
Dr. Tristram, Mr. Archibald, and Mr. Shaw appeared for
the promoter of the suit. The defendant was unrepresented.
Dr. Stevens said before entering into this case he wished-
to make an observation in some degree of a personal cha:-
racter. On the last two occasions, when this case was in-
troduced into court, during his absence some harsh
observations were made by his lordship in reference to the
delay which had taken place in t he prosecution of the
suit. As leading counsel in this case, he took upon him-
self the exclusive responsibility of its management,
The order in Council containing a report of the Judicial
Committee was made on the 31st March, 1867. During
the first week in April, an appointment was made at his
chambers for consultation, and he then understood that Mr.
Bennett was selling a book which contained the following
passage " the body and blood of Christ in its real presence
is given to and received by all, both in respect of those
who eat and drink unworthily, and in respect of those
who eat and drink worthily." Concerning that, it
would be necessary for the ends of justice to obtainfurther
legislation, and as the best way, would be to have thei
whole question in reference to the Real Presence argues
in once case and at onetime, he advised that an application
should be made to the Bishop of Bath and \V ei .* for permis-
sion to institute proceedings against Mr. Bennett undertho
Church Discipline Act in reference to the book in ques-
tion. When he gave that advice, he did not conceive,
but that the Bishop would have granted the application.
It was made accordingly to his lordship on the
13th May,. and a letter was subsequently received
from the bishop, in which he refused to allow any pro-
ceedings to be instituted in reference to that publication.
On the 28th May a remission was filed in the registry
of the court, and there was only a delay of fifteen days,
and an appeal could not have been heard by the Privy
Council earlier had any other steps been taken. The
apparitor of the court proved the service of the subpcena
on the defendant, both to appear and to produce the
manuscripts of certain articles of which it was alleged he
was the author. —The Rev. Mr. Shipley, examined by
Mr. Archibald, said he was a clergyman of the Church of
England. He was editor of "The Church and the World.'
The essay in question was sent to him by Mr. Bennett for
publication, and forwarded by him to Messrs. Rivington
for publication. Witnesses were called to prove the pub-
lication of books containing the objectionable teachings
from Mr. Bennett's manuscripts. Dr. Stevens then
opened the case. He said the promoter in this
case was Mr. Sheppard, a gentleman holding
an influential position in the parish of Frome.
The question in reference to the Holy Eucharist, which
had arisen between Mr. Sheppard and Mr. Bennett was
of the gravest importance. The charges brough against
the defendant were for having in his works dealing with
the Tractarianism of 1833, and published in a book called
" The Church of the World "in 1867. The other work
containing objectionable matter was entitled " A Plea
for Toleration in the Church of England," and both of
these works contained tractarian views, it was contended,
at variance with the laws ecclesiastic. In order
to substantiate those charges he proposed to divide the
arguments into two divisions. It would be necessary to
inquire, therefore, what were the doctrines of the Church
of -England as contained in the Thirty-nine Articles of
religion and other formularies of the Church in relation to
the matters which Mr. Bennetthadwritten and published.
Secondly, what was a fair construction of the meaning ofMr.
Bennett's publications. The first step in this inquiry
would be to trace in detail the forms and statutes and
other documents of the Church of England and the gradual
steps by which the doctrines had been framed from the be-
ginning of the reign of Edward VI. until its final
settlement in the reign of Charles the Second. When
these doctrines had been ascertained it would be necessary
to detail separately what the Church embodied in the
articles against Mr. Bennett. Before, however, attention
was directed to the precise state of the Eucharistic
doctrine of the Church of England, at the cottre
mencement of her Reformation, it would be im-
portant to ascertain what would be the constituted
rules and to shew documents in, matters of doctrine.
General riles had been very clearly laid down by the
judges in answer to certain questions proposed to them
by the House of Lords in the case of Shore and Wilson.
:Vow the question in that case was respecting the legisla-
tive manner Of discovering the sense in which'Lady Hewlett
had made use of the words, " The Godly preachers of
Christ's Gospel." In that case, it was decreed that the
words must be construed according to their general mean-
ing. Now, the charge against Mr. Bennett was that he had
maintained doctrines contrary to the articles and formularies
of the Church. The question could not be raised whether
Mr. Bennett's doctrine is conformable with Scripture, be-
cause such question would involve the previous case,
whether the Thirty-nine Articles or other formularies
of the Church are conformable to the Scrip-
tures, which can be settled by no other
tribunal, but Parliament could decide. The learned
counsel then referred to the Twenty-eight and Twenty-
nine Articles of the Church. In reference to the taking
and eating of the elements, the former, he said,
went to'shew that the body was only given spiritually
by God and not by the priest ; it was taken by faith, and
not by hand. It was eaten by the soul, and not by the
body, and that the only means by which the
body was received was by faith. The views also laid
down by tne doctrine of the 29th Article declared that the
wicked were in no wise partakers of Christ, which was
distinctly opposite to the teaching of Mr. Bennett, that
the Body was received by all. The 29th Article was
decisive therefore against any Real Presence in the
elements on the Altar or in the holy places.
At this period of the learned counsel's address the
hearing was adjourned until to-morrow.