The 20th and 27th articles of charge contain the false doctrines alleged to be held by Mr. Bennett. The 20th charges that he affirms the doctrine that adoration or worship is due to the consecrated bread and wine. The 27th he affirms that adoration is due to Christ present upon the altars of our churches in the Sacrament of the Holy Communion, under the form of bread and wine, on the ground that under their veil is the sacred Body and Blood of our Lord (the passages referred to for proof are set out in the 7th article). The 31st article charges that these doctrines are contrary to the 28th Article of Religion and the Declaration of Kneeling. The passages relied on as the ground of these charges are the following:

were:

"The reader will observe that in the first two editions, at page 3, the words -"The real actual and visible presence of our Lord upon the altars of our churches." In the present edition he will find at page 2 the following words substituted :-"The real and actual presence of our Lord under the form of bread and wine upon the altars of our churches." He will also observe that, at page 14 in the former editions, the words were:-"Who myself adore and teach the people to adore the consecrated elements, believing Christ to be in them-believing that under their veil is the sacred Body and Blood of my Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ." He will now find the following words substituted :-"Who myself adore and teach the people to adore Christ present in the Sacrament, under the form of bread and wine, believing that under their veil is the sacred Body and Blood of my Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.” "The three great doctrines on which the Catholic Church has to take her stand are these:-I. The real objective presence of our blessed Lord in the Eucharist; II. The sacrifice offered by the priest; and, III. The adoration due to the presence of our blessed Lord therein. Well, I do not know what others of my brethren in the priesthood may think—I do not wish to compromise them by anything that I say or do but seeing that I am one of those who burn lighted candles at the altar in the daytime, who use incense at the Holy Sacrifice, who use the Eucharistic vestments, who elevate the Blessed Sacrament, who myself adore, and teach the people to adore, Christ present in the Sacrament, under the form of bread and wine, believing that under their veil is the sacred Body and Blood of my Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ; seeing all this, it may be conceived that I cannot rest very much at ease under the imputations above recited.”

"Their Lordships agree with the learned Judge of the court below that the doctrine charged in the 20th article-namely, that adoration is due to the consecrated elements-is contrary to law, and must be condemned. But they have admitted, as the learned Judge has done, Mr. Bennett's explanation of that language, and therefore they are not called upon to condemn Mr. Bennett under the 20th article. The 27th article of charge therefore alone remains for decision; it is as follows:

"That in or by the passages lettered N, O, and S, herein before set forth in the seventh preceding article you have maintained or affirmed and promulgated the doctrine that adoration is due to Christ, present upon the altars (thereby referring to the communion-tables) of the churches of the said United Church of England and Ireland in the Sacrament of the Holy Communion under the form of bread and wine, on the ground that under their veil is the sacred Body and Blood of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.' "Their Lordships have now to consider whether or not the passages from

the respondent's writings above set forth are necessarily repugnant to or contradictory of the 28th Article of Religion, or of the Declaration of Kneeling, as alleged in the 31st article of charge. The Declaration of Kneeling states that, by the direction that the communicants shall receive the consecrated elements kneeling, no adoration is intended or ought to be done either to the sacramental bread and wine there bodily received, or to any corporal presence of Christ's natural flesh and blood.' According to this declaration, neither the elements nor any corporal presence of Christ therein ought to be adored. The 28th Article lays down that the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper was not by Christ's ordinance reserved, carried about, lifted up, or worshipped.' In the 25th Article it had been affirmed that the Sacraments were not ordained by Christ to be gazed upon, or to be carried about, but that we should duly use them.' It was laid down in Martin v. Mackonochie that such acts as the elevation of the cup and paten, and kneeling and prostration of the minister before them, were unlawful, because they were not prescribed in the Rubric of the Communion Office, and because acts not prescribed were to be taken as forbidden. Their Lordships in that judgment adopted the words of the Committee in Westerton v. Liddell, for the performance of the services, rites, and ceremonies ordered by the Prayer Book, the directions contained in it must be strictly observed; no omission and no addition can be permitted.' It follows then that the Church of England has forbidden all acts of adoration to the Sacrament, understanding by that the consecrated elements. She has been careful to exclude any act of adoration on the part of the minister at or after the consecration of the elements, and to explain the posture of kneeling prescribed by the Rubric. If the charge against Mr. Bennett were that he had performed an outward act of adoration on any occasion in the service, the principles laid down in Martin v. Mackonochie would apply to this case. Such an act could not be done except in the service, because the Sacrament may not be ' reserved.' But even if the respondent's words are a confession of an unlawful act, it is questionable whether such a confession would amount to false doctrine. And it is also fair to remember, in the respondent's favour, that the judgment in the case of Martin v. Mackonochie, which established the unlawfulness of introducing acts of adoration, was not delivered until December 23, 1868, after the publication of the words that are now impugned. Some of their Lordships have doubted whether the word 'adore,' though it seems to point rather to acts of worship such as are forbidden by the 28th Article, may not be construed to refer to mental adoration, or prayers addressed to Christ present spiritually in the Sacrament, which does not necessarily imply any adoration of the consecrated elements, or of any corporal or natural presence therein. Upon the whole, their Lordships, not without doubts and division of opinions, have come to the conclusion that this charge is not so clearly made out as the rules which govern penal proceedings require. Mr. Bennett is entitled to the benefit of any doubt that may exist. His language has been rash, but as it appears to the majority of their Lordships that his words can be construed so as not to be plainly repugnant to the two passages articled against them, their Lordships will give him the benefit of the doubt that has been raised. Their Lordships having arrived at the conclusion that they must advise her Majesty that the appeal must be dismissed, feel bound to add that there is much in the judgment of the learned Judge in the court below with

6

which they are unable to concur. The learned Judge has endeavoured to settle, by a mass of authorities, what is the doctrine of the Church of England on the subject of the Holy Communion. It is not the part of the Court of Arches, nor of this Committee, to usurp the functions of a Synod or Council. Happily their duties are much more circumscribed-namely, to ascertain whether certain statements are so far repugnant to or contradictory of the language of the Articles and Formularies, construed in their plain meaning, that they should receive judicial condemnation. Their Lordships will not attempt to examine in detail the catena of authorities which the Judge of the Arches has brought together, nor that of the learned counsel who appeared for the appellant. No mode of argument is more fallacious on a subject so abstruse and of so many aspects; short extracts, even where candidly made, as in this case, give no fair impression of an author's mind. Thus, Dean Jackson is quoted in the judgment; but the quotation omits the preceding sentence (Works,' vol. x., p. 41), which gives to the whole passage a meaning difficult to reconcile with the purpose for which it is used; while the opinion of this eminent divine would have been more correctly represented by referring also to the following remarkable passage in a previous chapter of this work :

"What need, then, is there of His bodily presence in the Sacrament, or of any other presence than the influence or emission of virtue from His heavenly sanctuary into our souls? He has left us the consecrated elements of bread and wine, to be unto us more than the hem of His garment. If we do but touch and taste them with the same faith by which this woman touched the hem of His garment, our same faith shall make us whole.' ('Works,' vol. ix., p. 611.)

Several of those who are cited by the learned Judge are living persons of greater or less note, who cannot rank as authorities for the history of a great controversy. One of the authorities is so questionable, that it requires a passing examination. The learned Judge, after quoting the 28th Article of Religion, introduces as a contemporanea expositio, from the compiler of this Article, which cannot, I think, be gainsaid,' a letter from Bishop Gheast to Cecil, under the date 1556 (probably a mistake for 1566), explaining the sense which he put upon the word 'only' in the 28th Article. Gheast does not say that he was the 'compiler' of the 28th Article, all but one sentence of which had been in substance in the Articles of 1552; and the context shows that he used the word' Article' only of this sentence, which, he says, was ' of mine own penning.' Upon the faith of this letter, genuine or not, avowedly written for a personal purpose (for mine own purgation'), is founded an exposition of the words only after a heavenly and spiritual manner,' as meaning that though a man took Christ's Body in his hand, received it with his mouth, and that corporally, naturally, really, substantially, and carnally . . . . yet did he not for all that see it, feel it, smell it, nor taste it.' Upon this alleged exposition their Lordships feel themselves free to observe that the words only after a heavenly and spiritual manner' do not appear to contain or involve the words 'corporally, naturally, and carnally,' but to exclude them; and that it is the Article, and not the questionable comments of a doubtful letter written for personal motives, which is binding on the clergy and on this Court. Their Lordships recall once more, in acknowledging the learning that has been brought to bear upon this case, the principle which this Committee

P

has long since laid down. 'There were different doctrines or opinions prevailing or under discussion at the times when the Articles and Liturgy were framed, and ultimately made part of the law; but we are not to be in any way influenced by the particular opinions of the eminent men who propounded or discussed them, or by the authorities by which they may be supposed to have been influenced, or by any supposed tendency to give preponderance to Calvinistic or Arminian doctrines. The Articles and Liturgy, as we now have them, must be considered as the final result of the discussion which took place, not the representation of the opinions of any particular men, Calvinistic, Arminian, or any other; but the conclusions which we must presume to have been deduced from a due consideration of all the circumstances of the case, including both the sources from which the declared doctrine was derived and the erroneous opinions which were to be corrected.' (Judgment of Privy Council, Gorham Case.)

Citations from established authors may be of use to show that the liberty which was left by the Articles and Formularies has been actually enjoyed and exercised by the members and ministers of the Church of England.' (Judgment of Privy Council, Gorham Case.) But, to say the least, very few of the quotations in the judgment exhibit the same freedom of language as do the extracts from Mr. Bennett. And after every authority had been examined there would still remain the question that is before this Committee, whether the licence or liberty is really allowed by the Articles and Formularies— whether anything has been said by the respondent which plainly contradicts them. If the respondent had made statements contradicting the Articles or Formularies, the citation of great names would not have protected him; if he has not done so, he is safe without their protection. There is one passage in the judgment which seems especially to call for comment:

"With respect to the second and corrected edition of his pamphlet, and the other work for which he is articled, I say that the objective, actual, and real presence, or the spiritual, real presence, a presence external to the act of the communicant, appears to me to be the doctrine which the Formularies of our Church, duly considered and construed so as to be harmonious, intended to maintain. But I do not lay down this as a position of law, nor do I say that what is called the Receptionist doctrine is inadmissible; nor do I pronounce on any other teaching with respect to the mode of presence. I mean to do no such thing by this judgment. I mean by it to pronounce only that to describe the mode of presence as objective, real, actual, and spiritual is certainly not contrary to the law.'

"Their Lordships regret that the learned Judge should have put forth this extra-judicial statement, in which he adopts words that are not used in the Articles or Formularies as expressing their doctrine. The word 'Receptionist' is as foreign to the Articles as the word 'objective.' Their Lordships have already said that any presence which is not a presence to the soul of the faithful receiver, the Church does not by her Articles and Formularies affirm. They need not ask whether there is really any doubt as to the admissibility of the doctrine of Hooker and Waterland, who appear to be described as 'Receptionists,' in the Church of which they have been two of the greatest ornaments. Their Lordships have not arrived at their decision without great anxiety and occasional doubt. The subject is one which has always moved the deepest feelings of religious men, and will continue to do so. There might

have been expected from a theologian dealing with this subject, if not a charitable regard for the feelings of others, at least a careful preparation and an exactness in the use of terms. The very divine whose opinions Mr. Bennett seems to have sought to represent, was obliged himself to point out how erroneous was his statement of those opinions. The respondent corrected the manifest error without an expression of regret at the pain he may have caused to many by his careless language. Even in their maturer form his words are rash and ill-judged, and are perilously near a violation of the law. But the Committee have not allowed any feeling of disapproval to interfere with the real duty before them, to decide whether the language of the respondent was so plainly repugnant to the Articles and Formularies as to call for judicial condemnation, and, as these proceedings are highly penal, to construe in his favour every reasonable doubt."

VI."

THE "PALL MALL GAZETTE" LIBEL CASE.

In the Court of Common Pleas on November 26 an action for libel, brought by Mr. Hepworth Dixon against Mr. G. Smith, the proprietor of the Pall Mall Gazette, was commenced. Mr. Serjeant Parry, Mr. Day, Q.C., and Mr. Gladstone appeared for the plaintiff; and Sir John Karslake, Q.C., Mr. Fitzjames Stephen, Q.C., and Mr. Murphy for the defendant.

The Lord Chief Justice was on the bench at the opening of the case by Mr. Serjeant Parry, but was obliged to retire from the court. After a delay of about ten minutes, Mr. Justice Brett made his appearance on the bench, and said he was sorry to say that the Lord Chief Justice had been taken very unwell, and that it was impossible he could go on with the case. He was, how

ever, ready to take the place of the Lord Chief Justice, but as the case was partly opened the learned serjeant would state shortly over again the main points.

Mr. Serjeant Parry, in opening the plaintiff's case, said that his client was one of the most successful authors of the day. For twenty-five years he had followed the profession of a literary man. He was a J.P. for Middlesex, had been a barrister for many years, and was also a member of many important literary societies both here and abroad. In 1870 Mr. Dixon published his book called "Free Russia," which had a very extensive circulation, and was most favourably reviewed. It was in reference to this publication that the first libel was published in the Pall Mall Gazette on May 18, 1870. It was contained in an article commencing

“We have received from Mr. Hepworth Dixon another of those insolent, ingenious letters with which he contrives to puff his books, obscene, inaccurate, or both, as soon as they appear. Nobody knows better than Mr. Dixon that to make a racket' (as they call it who employ the expedient) is the best of all ways of promoting its sale, and obviously the more worthless a book is, the greater its dependence for commercial success on being pushed into all the libraries before its real merits are made known, the more desirable is this 6 racket.' Mr. Dixon's letters to the papers show him to be a master of the