L

in all the costs of the suit, except those incident to the charge of undue elevation, which I have pronounced not to be proved. It is my duty also to admonish Mr. Mackonochie to desist from the practices mentioned in the articles proved, and to warn him that contumacious disobedience to this sentence may entail upon him, according to the Ecclesiastical Law, one of far greater severity. The sentence will be published in the usual manner and form, and take effect from Sunday next.

THE OFFICE OF THE JUDGE PROMOTED BY

JENKINS v. COOK.

An incumbent having primâ facie ground for believing that one of his parishioners is not qualified to receive the Holy Communion, submits the question to his Ordinary, and either receives no direction from his Ordinary, or is directed to refuse to administer to him the Holy Communion. Such incumbent is not guilty of an ecclesiastical offence in refusing to administer to him the Holy Communion.

A layman who persistently denied the Existence of the Devil

and the Doctrine of Eternal Punishment in any shape, and who maintains that large portions of the Bible are of an indecent and irreligious tendency, may be refused the Holy Communion by his parish priest.

I GAVE judgment in this case on the 16th of July 1875. An appeal has been asserted, and is still pending. The case is not yet reported.

JUDGMENT. I retain the opinion which I expressed on accepting the letters of request in this case, namely, that it was one especially proper for the cognizance of the Bishop of the diocese; and I regret that, in his Lordship's opinion, circumstances had rendered it unfit that he should exercise his episcopal jurisdiction in this matter. It is my duty, however, to deal with the subject thus presented to me according to the best of my ability without the great advantage of the Bishop's judgment thereupon.

The history of the proceedings taken in the case, so far as it is necessary to state them, is as follows:- :

Upon the 18th of November 1874 the Bishop of Gloucester and Bristol issued a commission under the 3 and 4 Vict. c. 86,

to inquire into and report upon a charge preferred by Mr. Henry Jenkins, a parishioner of the parish of Christ's Church, Clifton, against the Rev. Flavel Smith Cook, a clerk in holy orders, in the diocese of Gloucester and Bristol, and vicar of his parish, for illegally and without any just cause or reason, and contrary to his duty in that behalf, refusing when he was officiating minister to administer the sacrament of the Holy Communion to Mr. Jenkins.

The Commission was duly holden, and after the examination of a witness, and after hearing counsel on both sides, reported that the majority of them considered that there was sufficient prima facie ground for instituting further proceedings against Mr. Cook.

Subsequently Mr. Jenkins obtained the permission of the Bishop to promote his office by letters of request to the Court of Arches.

On the 19th of February 1875 articles were filed against Mr. Cook.

They charge that the promoter, being a parishioner of the defendant's parish, a member of the Church of England, and having during the last six years regularly attended Divine service on Sundays at his parish church, having been in the habit of receiving the Holy Communion in his church monthly, having always conducted himself reverently in church, joining in the responses in accordance with the directions of the rubric, believing in the inspiration of the canonical books of the Old and New Testament, that Scripture contained all things necessary for salvation, and in the doctrine of the atonement of the sins of mankind by the death of our Lord on the Cross, and having published and using a certain volume of family prayers, which is annexed, was, on Sunday the 4th of October 1874, after having given the legal notice, and having duly presented himself to receive the Holy Communion, refused the Communion by the defendant.

The defendant put in a responsive plea, the substance of which will be stated hereafter, and there was an allegation in reply.

The case came on for hearing before me on the 22d and 24th of June, and I took time to consider the judgment which I am now about to deliver.

The contention of the promoter is, that being a parishioner, and having given due notice of his intention to be a communicant on the following Sunday, he did so present himself, and was repelled by the defendant. I thought that when these facts. were proved the burden of proof was shifted, and that it was for the defendant to show that he had adequate reasons for this

repulsion. The defendant undertook to discharge this burthen by proving that the promoter had published a work called Selections from the Old and New Testament, and had written letters to show that he made these selections more especially because he did not believe in the eternity of punishment, or; indeed, as it would appear from the passages omitted, in the punishment of sin at all, or in the existence or personality of the devil, or in other matters of importance.

It was admitted, properly, in my opinion, that the publishing a volume of extracts from the Old and New Testament without preface or comment, and with asterisks denoting where passages were omitted, was not per se an offence which warranted the refusal of the Holy Communion to the author of the work. The letters, however, gave a different colour to the matter, showing quo animo the omissions were made, and being tantamount to a denial of the doctrine and the truth of the facts contained in the omitted passages.

The correspondence put in evidence comprises letters between the defendant and the promoter, between the defendant and the Bishop, between the promoter and the Bishop, and between the solicitors of the parties.

The defendant takes up in substance two grounds of defence:

First, That whether the reasons alleged to him were valid or invalid, he is not, having regard to his conduct and the particular law on the subject, a criminous clerk subject to the provisions of the Clergy Discipline Act.

Secondly, That his reasons for refusal were legally and morally valid, and that therefore he has committed no offence against the law ecclesiastical.

The two lines of defence perhaps sometimes cross one another, but on the whole they are sufficiently distinct. I proceed to consider them in their order.

With reference to the first line of defence, it becomes necessary to enter a little into the history of the present case.

It appears that in the year 1865 the promoter published a volume entitled Selections from the Old and New Testament. This volume he presented to the defendant, who seems never to have examined it until after the 6th of July 1874. On the Sunday before that day the defendant had preached a sermon in his parish church, and on the next day he received the following letter from the promoter:

"3 Vyvyan Terrace, Clifton, 6 July 1874. "MY DEAR SIR,-As one of your parishioners who accepts his conscience as the voice of God speaking within him, I beg

to protest most emphatically against the irreligious tendency of your sermon of last night. I quite believe that you would not willingly deceive others, but it is my opinion that no difficulties as to language or books should stifle what is imprinted in every man's breast by his Maker, that is to say, the knowledge of right and wrong.-I am, my dear Sir, yours very sincerely, HENRY JENKINS."

I learn from subsequent correspondence, that this letter was caused by the defendant having maintained the doctrine of eternal punishment, which the promoter characterises in subsequent letters addressed to the Bishop as an "irreligious," disgusting," and "impious" doctrine.

"

It appears that the defendant, who had then for the first time examined the book sent by the promoter, and discovered that many important parts of the Holy Scripture were omitted in it, called upon the promoter with the object of enlightening and rebuking him, both as to his letter and book; but he refused to hear any communication on the subject. His wife, however, who has been examined as a witness, called upon the defendant and endeavoured unsuccessfully to persuade him that her husband was justified in his conduct.

On the 20th of July the promoter again wrote to the defendant. The letter was as follows:

"3 Vyvyan Terrace, Clifton, 20 July 1874. "MY DEAR SIR,-Mrs. Jenkins has kindly called upon you, in order to arrange matters, with, I am afraid, very poor success. With regard to my book, Selections from the Old and New Testament, the parts I have omitted, and which has enabled me to use the book morning and evening in my family, are, in their present generally received sense, quite incompatible with religion or decency (in my opinion). How such ideas have become connected with a book containing everything that is necessary for a man to know, I really cannot say, and can only sincerely regret it.-I am, my dear Sir, yours. very sincerely, HENRY JENKINS."

"The Rev. Flavel Cook,

"19 Vyvyan Terrace, Clifton."

It is very important to observe the language of this letter, because it contains a declaration that the passages omitted are so omitted on the ground that, as generally understood, they are incompatible with religion or decency. During the hearing I urged more than once upon the counsel for both parties the propriety of the following arrangement, viz., that the promoter