The Sun.
London, England, 1867-09-17 00:00:00

Therefore there is no opportunity of telling
what the effect of the vestments is on the general
congregation, because the general congregation,
as a rule, are not there ?—They are not there.
Did I understand you to use this phrase— that
the elevation of the elements took place for the
purpose of adoration ?—Yes ; I consider the first
elevation for the purpose of consecration to be
totally distinct. After the consecration both the
elements are elevated for the purpose of people
knowing that the consecration has taken place,
and that they may have the opportunity of adoring
and praying.
Would you hold that the phrase "the adoration
of the elements" was a proper orthodox phrase ?
It is the adoration not of the elements, but of that
which is hidden under them.
Sir Joseph Napier—ls it a rule of the Catholic
Church that the minister, with the consent of the
congregation, may select the ceremonial ?—lf by
the Catholic Church you mean the Roman and
the Greek Churches, and the Church throughout
the world, the ceremonial is so distinctly laid, down
in their rules that they cannot deviate.
I understood you before to say that you thought
it most important to get the consent of the people ?
—ln teaching people up to the point that I think
right, of course it is wise and prudent to teach them
gradually ; and, therefore, teaching them as I did
the doctrine, they would naturally follow to the
practice.

Do you think it part of the Church arrangement
that the ceremonial should be suitable to the doc-
trine ?—Exactly.
If there was any change made by the Church in
the doctrine, there would naturally be a change in
the ceremonial ?—Exactly, or the ceremonial would
have no more meaning.
The Earl of Harrowby—What is your guide in
the selection of ceremonies and vestments not ac-
tually prescribed by the Prayer-book ? Those
which are in use by the Catholic Church through-
out Christendom.
Your rule is everything which is prescribed by
the Catholic Church anywhere that is not abso-
lutely prohibited?—ln the English Church.
Where do you get the authority for what is pre-
scribed as the general use of the Catholic Church ?
—By studying the books of that Church. Our
own Sarum missal for instance.
Is there any one acknowledged standard amongst
the clergy by which they can tell to what they ought
to work up ?—No ; except the Sarum missal.
You believe that every English clergyman ought
to work up to the Sarum missal if he can, excep t
in points absolutely prohibited ?—Yes.
And that is the standard ?—That is the standard.
That is the standard which you would acknow-
ledge ? —Yes.
You feel now that you have satisfied yourself
that yours is the type which the English Church
ought to work up to ?—No, I have not. I should
like the chrism to be used, and I should like the
bishops to anoint in confirmation, and to use the
sign of the cross, and I should like a great deal
more if you ask me my likings.
There are no other points that you are working
up to now, within what you consider the permitted
usages ?—I have nothing in my intention at the
present moment beyond what I have described.
Your theory is that every clergyman is to get for
himself the best information he can as to the usages
of the Catholic Church generally, and, if possible,
being an Englishman, the use of Sarum, and to
work up to that as fast as he can get the approba-
tion of his congregation ?—As fast as he can get
the people to join with him.
I understand if any usage is positively condemned
by authority you at once acquiesce ?—I gave one
instance, a special instance, of the reservation.
You believe that nothing you now practise has
been legally condemned?— At the time of the
cholera, when I was at St. Barnabas, 1 did carry
the Blessed Sacrament from street to street and
from house to house, and administered it. I was
Irtebwuakseda
wfoorrktohfant
eobeysstihtye tshoenohßtiismhoesp
ooff
nt Londo.
.
do not happen very often.

MARSHALL VERSUS THE BISHOP OF
EXETER.

Le recent case in the House of Lords, " Marshall
v. the Bishop of Exeter," deserves a moment's
consideration as illustrative of the relations between
Church and State in England. Our readers will
recollect that in that case the plaintiff brought an
action of quare impedit in the temporal courts
against the bishop for refusing to institute the clerk
whom he had presented to a living in his gift.
The Bishop pleaded that, in conformity with the
provisions of canon law, the presentee being a
stranger in his diocese, he had demanded testimo-
nials from his former diocesan, that no satisfactory
testimonials were forthcoming, and that he then
lawfully refused to grant institution. The plaintiff
demurred to this that it was no answer in law.
The courts of law held that this was so, and on
appeal to the House of Lords, the judges advised
that House to confirm the judgment. The dis-
cussion turned on the degree of authority ascribed
to the canons by the common law of England—that
is, by the ancient law prevailing in Catholic times.
It is admitted on all hands that the canons were
never held to be binding proprio vigore, as is
illustrated by the famous reply of the barons at
the Parliament of Merton, when solicited to amend
the law of legitimacy by making it conform to the
canon law—" Nolumus legis Anglian mutare."
(We won't change the laws of England.) By
virtue of which answer we are at this day the only
people of
of theChristendpoamrema may in any
whodeny that the scuabsesequent
marriage legiti-
mate
the children born before the marriage.
necessarily Canons,
introduced
however,
whenla w
Christianityecclesiastical
Church
a was
s wwe arin-
troducedes and established, when the
canons established ; and consequently a
may be shown to have been usedll sucha
dreceived
a s
at

,he time when our laws were being shaped into

form—the period before legal memory begins—
are part and parcel of the common law, and un-
distinguishable therefrom ; as, for instance, the
authority of the bishops to administer the law
ecclesiastical in their consistorial courts. But what
is the authority of such portions of the ancient
canon law, as we cannot prove to have been always
in use in England, and of such later canons as
were enacted subsequent to the time of legal
memory, that is, the coronation of King Richard
I. ? It is recorded that in the reign of Edward
IV. one of the justices of the King's Bench, in
the course of an argument, made the remark that
the canons bind the clergy, but do not bind the
laity, who have no hand in making them. This was
repeated in a subsequent reign by another of the
justices, and so it passed from mouth to mouth,
found its way into the text books, and became a
received maxim ; one authority alone, Chief Jus-

tice Vaughan, in the time of Charles 1., seeming
to hold that 46 lawful" canons, provided they
meddled with Church matters only, were 'univer-
sally binding. Before the end of the 17th century,
however, it was formally adjudged that they did
not bind the laity ; but what as t 9 the clergy?

We re vessels presented for the purpose of using
the ins zlense?—Yes.
lun derstand you to say that you incensed the
Holy (. 7rospel?—Yes.
Will you explain what you meant by that?—
The GI Dspeller, who is the deacon, takes the Book
of the Holy Gospel in his hand, the sub-deacon
le censer and incenses it.
'es the book ?—lncenses the book.
takineseetnil.
Dean ElY—With regard to the general at-
tendances on Sunday at the great morning services
at n
h s
the E'acharistic vestments are used, is
tewahniece
the church gen/irony tolerably full ?—Yes, from 80
to 100 Iperson4
Communicate, and perhaps 150 per-
sons are? present.
That i a not t;he whole congregation, is it ?—We
never h; we a late celebration ; it is generally at
eight o'clock in the morning; never later than
nine, choral.
v_ our communion on Sunday does not follow the
rAatins as is the case in most churches ?—No ; we
scrupulously avoid it, except on the first Sunday
in the month, and then it is separate. A fresh
bell rings, and it is quite a separate service alto-
gether.