PARKER r. LEACH. Note C. same sense, but there is a Communion Table, on which bread and wine are placed, that the parishioners may come round it to partake of the Sacrament-the Supper of our Lord. "It is impossible to derive from language applicable to a Roman Catholic Altar a conclusion of law applicable to a Protestant Church, which conclusion cannot be drawn unless you hold the Communion Table to be in all respects equivalent to the Altar of a Roman Catholic Church.' (4 Moore's Privy Council Reports, New Series, page 180.) WILLIAMS BISHOP OF v. FENDALL. Note D. NOTE D. WILLIAMS v. BISHOP OF SALISBURY, WILSON v. FENDALL. 'Essays and Reviews.' 'ESSAYS AND REVIEWS,' which resulted in the above suits, were published in the early spring of 1860. The book contained several essays. The subjects treated, and the authors' names, were as follows: : 1. The Education of the World. By Frederic Temple, D.D., Head Master of Rugby. (Bishop of Exeter, 1869.) 2. Bunsen's Biblical Researches. By Rowland Williams, D.D., Vicar of Broad Chalk, and Vice-Principal of Lampeter College. 3. On the Study of the Evidences of Christianity. By Baden Powell, F.R.S., Savilian Professor in the University of Oxford. By 4. Séances historiques de Génève.-The National Church. 7. On the Interpretation of Scripture. By Benjamin Jowett, The object of the work, and the degree of responsibility of the writers, were thus stated in the Preface: 'It will readily be understood that the authors of the ensuing Essays are responsible for their respective Articles only. They have written in entire independence of each other, and without concert or comparison. 'The volume, it is hoped, will be received as an attempt to illustrate the advantage derivable to the cause of moral and religious truth, from a free handling, in a becoming spirit, of subjects peculiarly liable to suffer by the repetition of conventional language, and from traditional methods of treatment.' A Attention was first called to the character of the work by an article in the Westminster Review' of October 1860, which was followed by an attack in the 'Quarterly' of January 1861. letter, signed by all the Bishops in England and Ireland, and of unknown authorship, was then published disapproving of certain opinions imputed to the Essayists. Convocation met shortly afterwards, and in the Lower House a vote of thanks to the Upper House was carried, and a Committee was appointed to examine into the book. About this time, too, a memorial condemning, as inconsistent with the teaching of the Church, extracts from the work, and signed by 10,000 Clergy, was presented at Lambeth; and in the following June, a report was presented to the Lower House of Convocation, and a motion was introduced to the effect, that there were grounds for proceeding to a Synodical Judgment. The Upper House, however, postponed the consideration of the subject till after the decision of the Judicial Committee, it appearing that, in case of an Appeal in the pending suits, some of the members of the House might be called to serve as judges. That decision was pronounced in February, 1864, Acquitting the Essayists, it was followed by considerable restlessness and excitement. The statute for the endowment of the Greek Chair at Oxford, held by Mr. Jowett, was defeated. An Oxford Committee drew up a declaration contravening in substance the effect of the decision, and questioning its validity. This document, which obtained the signatures of 11,000 Clergymen, was as follows :— • We, the undersigned Presbyters and Deacons in Holy Orders of the Church of England and Ireland, hold it to be our bounden duty to the Church, and to the souls of men, to declare our firm belief that the Church of England and Ireland, in common with the whole Catholic Church, maintains without reserve or qualification the inspiration and Divine authority of the whole Canonical Scriptures, as not only containing, but being, the Word of God and further teaches, in the Words of our Blessed Lord, that the "punishment" of the "cursed," equally with "the life" of the "righteous," is "everlasting." The subject was also revived in the Convocation of the Province of Canterbury, where, notwith standing considerable opposition on the part of eminent members of both Houses, Synodical Condemnation of the bock was passed in the month of July 1864, WILLIAMS t. BISHOP OF t. FENDALL. Note D. NOTE E. MARTIN v. MACKONOCHIE. Extract from Report of Royal Commissioners on Ritual as to the use of lighted candles and incense. By the judgment of the Dean of the Arches in this case (March 28, 1868), the Respondent was monished to abstain from the use of incense during the celebration of the Eucharist, but the learned Judge omitted to pronounce that the Respondent had offended against the Law by having lighted candles on the Communion Table during the said celebration, when such candles were not wanted for the purpose of giving light. Both these matters-the use of incense and lighted candles on the Communion Table-were, at the time of the Arches Judgment, under consideration of the Ritual Commissioners, and are dealt with in their second Report, signed April 30, 1868, with this distinction, that their consideration of the use of incense is not confined to its use during the administration of the Lord's Supper. The Report is to the following effect : : "The use of lighted candles in celebrating the Holy Communion, when they are not needed for the purpose of giving light, and the use of incense in the public Services of the Church, are the matters connected with this branch of the subject to which our attention has mainly been directed. We have taken evidence, and have availed ourselves of the information furnished by the arguments in the recent suits before the Court of Arches of Martin v. Mackonochie and Flamank v. Simpson, both in respect of lights used at the celebration of the Holy Communion, and also in respect of the use of incense as part of the public Services of the Church. 'The use of lighted candles at the celebration of the Holy Communion, has been introduced into certain Churches within a period of about the last twenty-five years. It is true that there have been candlesticks with candles on the Lord's Table during a long period in many cathedral and collegiate churches and chapels, and also in the chapels of some colleges, and of some Royal and Episcopal residences; but the instances that have been adduced to prove that candles have been lighted as accessories to the Holy Communion, are few and much contested. 'With regard to Parish Churches, whatever evidences there may be as to candlesticks with candles being on the Lord's Table, no sufficient evidence has been adduced before us to prove that at any time during the last three centuries lighted candles have been used in any of these Churches as accessories to the celebration of the Holy Communion until within about the last twenty-five years. MARTIN v. MACKONO- "The use of incense in the public Services of the Church Note E. during the present century is very recent, and the instances of its introduction are very rare; and so far as we have any evidence before us, it is at variance with the Church's usage for 300 years. 'Under these circumstances, we are of opinion that it is expedient to restrain in the public services of the Church all variations from established usage in respect of lighted candles, and of incense.' The Report is signed, without reserve as to the result of the evidence, by twenty-three Commissioners. Six Commissioners declined to sign; but, with one exception, they did not thereby dissent from the conclusions stated above. NOTE F. MARTIN v. MACKONOCHIE. Sumner v. Wix. MARTIN 0. MACKONO CHIE. THE question of the lawfulness of lighted candles, and the use of incense, came before the Arches Court of Canterbury (Sir R. J. Phillimore presiding), on January 10, 1870, in a suit entitled, 'The Office of the Judge,' promoted by Bishop Sumner v. Wix. Note F. The case is interesting, as it extended the rulings of the Judicial Committee, in Martin v. Mackomochie, as to the unlawfulness of lighted candles, so as to include the case of lighted candles held one on each side of the Priest when reading the Gospel, such lighted candles not being required for the purpose of giving light. The material allegations contained in the Articles, and the substance of the evidence offered in support of them, appear fully in the judgment. Dr. Deane, Q.C., and Dr. Tristram appeared for the Promoter; Mr. Charles for the Defendant. Judgment was delivered, February 3, 1870, by Sir R. Phillimore, as follows: In this case, the office of the judge is promoted by the late Bishop of Winchester against the Rev. Richard H. E. Wix, Vicar of St. Michael and All Angels, Swanmore, Isle of Wight. The case comes before this Court by Letters of Request from the Diocese of Winchester, and Bishop Sumner, having ceased to be Bishop of the See of Winchester, continues to be the promoter of the suit. The Defendant is charged with the Ecclesiastical Offences of adding to the Ceremonies and Rites prescribed by the Law to be used in Church, by the burning of lights and the use of incense. The charges with respect to the burning of lights are contained in the following Articles: '3rd. That the said Richard H. E. Wix, in the Church of the said Perpetual Curacy or Vicarage of St. Michael and All Angels, on the following Sundays, February 7, March 28, April 18, and May 23, all in the year 1869, used lighted candles on the Communion Table in the said Church, or on a ledge or shelf immediately above the said Communion Table, the said ledge or shelf, having the appearance of being affixed to, and of forming part of, the said Communion Table, during the celebration of the Holy Communion, at times when such lighted candles were not required for the purpose of giving light, and permitted and sanctioned such use of lighted candles. '5th. That the said Richard H. E. Wix, in the said Church, on the following Sundays, March 28, April 18, and May 23, all in the year 1869, used lighted candles placed in candlesticks, standing on each side of the Communion Table, during the celebration of the Holy Communion, at times when such lighted candles were not required for the purpose of giving light, and permitted and sanctioned such use of lighted candles. 7th. That the said Richard H. E. Wix, in the said Church, on Sunday, March 28, 1869, caused or permitted two lighted candles to be held, one on each side of the Priest, when reading the Gospel, such lighted candles not being then required for the purpose of giving light.' I will deal with the last Article first, because it is admitted on behalf of the Promoter, that the practice therein complained of has been de facto discontinued by Mr. Wir since the service upon him of a monition by the Bishop, dated April 3, in last year, and before the commencement of this suit; at the same time Mr. Wix contends the practice is lawful, and the judgment of the Court is prayed by the Promoter thereupon. I am of opinion that the practice charged in this Article is unlawful, as an addition to the Rites and Ceremonies prescribed by the Law. I am glad, therefore, that Mr. Wix obeyed the monition of his Ordinary, and must admonish him not to return to the use of this practice. With respect to the charge contained in the 3rd Article, Mr. Wix offers the following defence in his responsive plea (3rd Article). He says the charge against him 'is, in part, untruly pleaded, for he alleges that on the said days, in the said 3rd Article men |