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

THE RITUAL COMMISSION-.

The following are extracts from the evidence of
the Rev. W. J. E. Bennett, of Frome Selwood :
The 'Archbishop of Canterbury—Do you use the
surplice ?—We use the surplice always in the
matins and evensong, at all times, except during
the Holy Communion.
What else do you use at other times ?—At the
Holy Communion we use the vestments.
Will you describe them ?—The chasuble, dal-
matic, and tunicle.
•

Do you use those vestments at any other time, or
any portion of them ?—No, we never use them
except at that time. _ .

How do you justify using the vestments ?—That
would take a long time to answer.
I do not want you to go through the whole argu-
ment?—How I justify it, would take a long time.
It might be a very short answer, I should think ?
—I will make it as short as I can. I justify it upon
the Catholic usage of the Church throughout the
world, interpreted by our canons and Prayer-
book.

You have heard that there is very great differ-
ence of opinion among lawyers as to the legality
of these vestments ?—Yes, I have heard that.

You think you are competent to decide that
when learned lawyers differ ?—Yes, until it is pro-
hibited by some act of the Church.
Then you act upon the principle that every
clergyman is at liberty, in things which the Church
has not forbidden, to exercise his own discretion
as to the usage which each in his own opinion
believes to be according to Catholic usage ?—Not
any usage ; but those usages which are very plain
to him and to his congregation.
Plain ; in what sense ?—Not forbidden by the
law, and desired by the people. I consider that
the consent of the congregation and parishioners
is of very great consequence.
You do not act at all in conformity with the
opinion of your bishop ?—My bishop has never
said a word to me on the subject.
Do you use incense ?—Yes.
Do you incense persons and things ?—We incense
the altar and the Holy Gospel.
You hold that to be legal—to swing the censer ?
—Yes ; if I thought it illegal I should not do it.
What is your practice in respect to lights ?—We
always burn lights at the Sacrament.
How many lights have you ?—Two.
You never have more than two, have you ?
Never more than two upon the altar; there are
lights surrounding, the usual lights, but they have
nothing to do with the altar.

WA respect to the mixed chalice, do you use
pure -wine or wine and water ?—We pour the wine
first, and then add a little water in the chalice for

consecration.

And that you justify on the same principle do
you, of usage ?—Yes ; the same principle as the
vestments and the lights.
Do you introduce any singing in the celebration
of the Holy Communion ?—Yes ; we sing a hymn
at the offertory. We sing the Kyrie Eleison and
the usual parts, the Gloria, and the Creed. What
is not in the Prayer-book is a hymn which we use
at the offertory.

That is to say during the sentences being read ?
—After one or two of the sentences have been read,
we sing a Eucharistic hymn.
You have no authority for that in the rubric,
have you ?—We have no authority in the rubric
to direct us; but there is no authority to direct
other hymns which are sung at matins and even-
song in every Church throughout England.
What do you infer from that ?—I consider that
I have a right to use the same liberty which other
Churches use.

But then the liberty which others use is in most
instances between two services, not in the middle
of one service. There is some distinction there ?
I have heard hymns sung as the preacher is going
up into the pulpit, which is in the middle of the
service, being after the Nicene Creed.

Archbishop of Armagh—You said you used the
vestments, by which I understand the chasuble,
cope, and dalmatic ?—Not the cope. I should use
the cope if I were wealthy enough to have one,
but I am not; the chasuble, dalmatic, and tunicle
are all that I use.

You said you were authorized to do so by the
Catholic usage of the Church interpreted by our
canons ?—And Prayer-book. _ _

Where do you find in the canons the chasuble
mentioned, or any authority to use it ?—I said
that it was a difficult question to answer off hand,
but I could produce the answer if I had time and
the references, because the canons are involved in
very great obscurity. I say the canons of the
Church, not only the canons of the English Church,
but the canons of the Universal Church, which are
not forbidden by the canons of the English
Church. It would require a great deal of time to
answer that question. I beg particularly to remark
that, and also that I can only answer off-hand in
the shortest possible way.
Do you not think that we are bound by our
own canons, by the canons of our own Church,
with respect to the vestments we use in divine
service, and that we should not go round the world
for the canons ?—No ; by the canons interpreted
by the various injunctions and other authoritative
decrees that have passed throughout the history
of the English Church and have been pro and con
at all times.

Have any of the congregation objected at any
time to the use of the vestments ?—I thought that
this would form the most important part of the
proceedings, therefore I have brought a letter in
which I was invited to do this very thing. I al-
ways told the people that I thought that was the
orrect usage of the Church of England, and I
never interfered nor did I attempt io do so till I
was publicly invited to do it by the document
presented to me officially by the churchwardens
and the communicants of the congregation. Then
I thought it was my bounden duty to follow what
they desired, considering it to be the law of the
Church. If you wish to have this in evidence, here
is the document.

Earl Stanhope—What is the date of it ?—No
vember 15, 1865.

Archbishop of Canterbury—By whom is it
signed ?—By the churchwardens officially, and a
number of the communicants in the name of the
rest. [Here follows the document.]
Archbishop of Armagh—Was that document
signed by all the parishioners ?—By a great num-
ber of the communicants; not by all the parishioners.
Those who were not communicants would have
nothing to do with it.

Did any dissent from that ?—I never heard of
any.

Earl of Harrowby—Do you mean the whole
body of the communicants ?—No ; a certain num-
ber representing others.
How is it stated there ?—There are signatures
of twenty-one men and thirty-five women, and the
two churchwardens.

Archbishop of Armagh—What is the population
of your parish ?—Our parish is divided into the
old parish church and two new district churches.
Those that remain connected with the old parish
church are about 5,000. .

You made this great change at the solicitation
of fifty people oat of a population of 5,000 ?—I
wish 1 had to deal with the 5,000 ; but at least
3,000 of them are Dissenters. I have not any
doubt that if I had to deal with them they would
be most glad to accede to what has been done.
Did you consider that these vestments would
make an additional bar to the Dissenters return-
ing to our communion ?—No; certainly not. If I
bad thought so I should not have done what I did,
but I thought it an additional reason to bring them
into the Church, because I thought that the more
distinctive the Church is from dissent the better
for the Church.

Archbishop of Armagh—At what time do you use
the chasuble ?--At all times of the celebration of
the Holy Communion.
Is there any mysterious signification in the
chasuble or in wearing it ?—That is a question
which involves doctrine. If I am to be launched
into doctrine, of course that again will involve
an immensely long discussion.
I think it does not require a very tong answer,

to say whether there is any doctrine involved in
your using the chasuble ?—I think there is.
What is that doctrine ?—The doctrine of the
Sacrifice.

Do you consider yourself a sacrificing priest?—
Yes.

In fact, sacei-clos, a sacrificing priest ?—Dis-
tinctly so.
What authority have you in the Prayer-book
for that ?—That again would involve a long answer.
It has been so interpreted by our divines, the
divines of our Church from the time of the Re-
formation downwards.
Then you think you offer a propitiatory sacrifice?
—Yes, I think I do offer a propitiatory sacrifice.
Do you use confession ?—Yes.

On what occasions?—On all occasions.
You do not, then, confine confession to the two
occasions mentioned in the Prayer-book, that of
persons wishing to attend the sacrament and in the
visitation of the sick ?—I do not confine it to that,
but it virtually is that, because the Communion
being every day, persons coming to that may, of
course, require important spiritual advice any day.
Do you use any form of absolution ?—Yos.
What form ?—The form provided in the Prayer-
book in the visitation of the sick.
You know at one time that was allowed, but that
in the second book of Edward VI. the permission
was withdrawn, does not that amount to a prohibi-
tion ; does it not, by implication, prohibit the use
of it ?—I cannot answer that off-hand, because
there may be some other succeeding alterations in
the rubric which I am not aware of at the present
moment. But when we are told to give absolution
we must give it in some form, and, seeing that we
have no other form provided but that, it seems
natural to recur to that.
Where are you told to give a form of absolution?
—We are to give absolution.
Where ?—ln the address to the people in the
service of the Holy Communion. They are invited
to " receive the benefit of absolution, together
with ghostly council and advice."
Is it not said " by the ministry of God's Holy
Word ?"—We give a form of absolution in matins
and evensong which is involved in words. By
parity of reasoning we should give a form of abso-
lution to those that are penitent. _

There is none provided by the Church. There
was one provided, but it was withdrawn, and the
very wording was changed at the same time. " Let
him come to me

that by the ministry of God's Holy Word he may
receive the benefit of absolution, together with
ghostly council and advice." Is not there a dis-
tinct meaning in absolution by the ministry of
God's Holy Word ?—I should think that was the
meaning, that the priest pronounced it by the
authority of God's Word.
Whately, I think, says there is no form provided,
but that God's Word is to be applied according to
the case of the penitent. You mix water, I believe,
with the wine ?—Yes. I pour in a small quantity
of water, two or three drops.
On what canon or what authority do you do
so ? Have you any authority in the Prayer-book
for doing so ?—There is no authority in the Prayer-
book. It is done by the authority of the Catholic
Church ; and the Prayer-book does not forbid that
which is the usual custom of the Church.
Are you not aware that that is violating the
custom of our Church of England for nearly three
hundred years ?—No ; I am not 'ware of that.
For what purpose do you use the lights—as sym-
bolical, or to give light ? —As symbolical.
Earl Stanhope—Who is your diocesan ?—The
Bishop of Bath and Wells.
I understood you to say that you had not re-
ceived any objection on the part of your diocesan?
—I have not received any objection.
Do you apply that to the former bishop as well
as to the present bishop ?—The former bishop died
within a few months after I came ; therefore he
had no opportunity of objecting. Our present
bishop has been bishop from within a few months
after I went there.

So far as you know have any families that were
in the habit of attending your church before these
alterations ceased to attend subsequently to them ?
—When I first came to the parish a great many
left the church, but that was before I opened my
mouth. Since that time Ido not remember any
leaving ; perhaps there may have been one family,
but I do not remember more than one.
Have any of those who left the church returned
to it since, and do they now attend it ?—Not only
have a great many returned, but a great many
Dissenters have been brought into the Church..
There is hardly a month but I receive in some way
members of Dissenting families into the Church.

I think you stated that out of 5,000 people in
your district, as many as 3,000 probably belong to
the Dissenters ?—I am afraid they are either Dis-
senters or of no religion at all.
With regard to the subject of confession : in re-
ceiving oral confessions you conceive you are only
fulfilling the words which the Church puts into
your mouth in the exhortation in the holy Com-
munion ?—Decidedly. .

Nothing more and nothing less ?—Nothing more
and nothing less.

The result of your experience is that the use of
the vestments tends not merely to a higher style
of service, but to practical result in the edification
of the congregation ?—Yes ; I think that the pro-
gress we have made in the tone of the devotion
of the services, and in the general character of the
people, and their constant attendance at prayers
and services of every kind, is attributable to the
increased care we have bestowed on the ritual
observance.

Bishop of Gloucester—You mentioned your use
of vestments. I should be glad to know whether
you regard these vestments as representing a doc-
trine, or simply worn honoris causii ?—I should say,
both. The honoris causci would involve a doctrine.

Mr. Hubbard.—You stated that you lifted up
the elements after consecration ; to what extent do
you lift them up ?—lt may not be to the same ex-
tent every time ; nor can each celebrating priest
elevate them to the same height ; there is no
rule about it ; it is simply a gentle elevation.
Some elevation is inevitable ?—Yes.

You must raise the cup and the paten from
the Communion table in order to perform the act
of consecration ?—Yes ; one elevation takes place
before the consecration, and there is another
elevation after the consecration. There are two
elevations. The priest cannot take up the cup
without an elevation. That is not for the purpose
of adoration.

In either case do you elevate the paten or the
cup with the view of presenting them to the ado-
ration of the people ?—Yes, distinctly, in the latter
case. It signifies to the people that the act of
consecration has taken place.
That, in truth, is the fact which you wish to
express to them by raising it up and presenting it
to their notice ?—Yes.

In the case of the consecrating prayer, do you
pronounce it as a whole, or do you make a pause
after the consecration of the bread in order to
make any prostration ?—We never use any pros-
tration, only kneeling.
Do you, after the consecration of the bread,
make a pause in the consecration prayer for the
purpose of making a kneeling ?—There is no pause ;
it is a simultaneous act.

It is not an absolute kneeling, but an inclination
only ?—Yes ; what is called a genuflexion.
Does a genuflexion mean touching the ground ?
—Touching the ground with one knee.

Dean of Ely—l think you stated that you had
vestments, incense, and lights ?—Yes.
In what order did the introduction of those
things follow each other ; were they introduced
simultaneously, or one after the other? The
lights were first introduced.
For how long were they used ?—I should say
for ten years. The next was the introduction
of the vestments according to that invitation ; and
the next was the incense.

The incense was asked for as well as the vest-
ments ?—Yes, but not publicly.
How long ago was that ; was it some consider-
able period after the introduction of the vestments ?
—Three or four months afterwards; it seemed to
follow in natural order.

Were vessels presented for the purpose of using
the incense?—Yes.

I understand you to say that you incensed the
Holy Gospel?—Yes.
Will you explain what you meant by that?—
The Gospeller, who is the deacon, takes the Book
of the Holy Gospel in his hand, the sub-deacon
takes the censer and incenses it.
Incenses the book ?—lncenses the book.

Dean of Ely—With regard to the general at-
tendances on Sunday at the great morning services
at which the Eucharistic vestments are used, is
the church generally tolerably full ?—Yes, from 80
to 100 persons communicate, and perhaps 150 per-
sons are present.

That is not the whole congregation, is it ?—We
never have a late celebration ; it is generally at
eight o'clock in the morning; never later than
nine, if choral.
Your communion on Sunday does not follow the
matins 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.

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 bold 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
the doctrine, a
they would naturally follow nd, therefore, teaching tfhnemu
w to
as I did
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 aro 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 English:man, 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, I did carry
the Blessed Sacrament from street to street and
from house to house, and administered it. I was
rebuked for that by the then Bishop of London.
It was a work of necessity. Such times of necessity
do not happen very often.

MJI?SIIALL VERSUS TILE BISHOP OF

EXETER.

The 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
athpapteaillotouseththe
fisermof
the judgment.
gthme judges
ent advised
that Tandedsiesd-
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 Anglia© mutare."
(We won't change the laws of England.) By
virtue of which answer we are at this day the only
people of Christendom who deny that the subsequent
marriage of the parents may in any case legiti-
mate the children born before the marriage.
Canons, however, and laws ecclesiastical were
necessarily introduced when Christianity was in-
troduced and established, when the Church was
established ; and consequently all such canons as
may be shown to have been used and received at
the 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 prole 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. `1 lt 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 " 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 to the clergy ?