Reformation, and of dislike to the Revolution of 1688, to which we are indebted for our present religious and political liberty.

There are many far better qualified than myself to expose the sophistry contained in the arguments by which Mr. Bennett would justify his conduct at Kissingen, but as certain allusions are made to the state of Frome, and assertions brought forward in reference to this controversy, which are not founded on fact, it appears desirable that some one possessing the requisite local knowledge and a party himself to the protest and petitions, should reply to his letter. In taking upon myself this task, one which I would gladly have avoided, I shall review Mr. Bennett's statements generally, and not think it necessary to restrict myself to the facts connected with Frome.

This second address to your Lordship did not come under my notice till several weeks after it had been published, in consequence of a temporary sojourn in Germany, where I was sent by my medical adviser; and having now somewhat more leisure than when I first returned, but still amidst much occupation and many distractions, I sit down to offer some observations upon it.

"Unfortunate Frome!" Well may Mr. Bennett apply this term to the parish which his presence has thrown into such disorder. We had been living for some years in peace and unanimity, and, I trust I may add, that the right use was made of this quiet; and that we might in some sort apply to ourselves the inspired penman's description of the early churches under like circumstances, that they were "walking in the fear of the Lord, and in the comfort of the Holy Ghost, and were multiplied;" and of this more anon. But a change passes over this tranquil scene. The aged Vicar, long a non-resident under the Bishop's licence, comes, as he himself says, "to lay his bones among us," and has scarcely selected the spot in the church-yard where he wishes them to be placed, before the earth is removed to make his grave.

The remains of our departed friend were not committed to the ground, ere rumour with her thousand tongues was busy

in conjecturing the name of his successor. It was a question who would exercise the right of nomination to the vacant post, a young man just coming of age, or his mother who had been acting as his guardian. A request from a most respectable quarter was forwarded to me that I should set on foot a petition to the noble Lady in question, in favor of the Curate, who was much and deservedly valued. This I declined, from a feeling that it was not right to attempt such an interference with the exercise of private patronage, and from a knowledge that the noble Patroness would not nominate to such an important post to which the presentation to three churches was attached, without much consideration: and being well aware of her benevolent disposition, as well as of her deep religious feeling, I pursued the tenor of my way without any over anxiety for the future. What was then my surprise and alarm when my confidence was destroyed at the expiration of a month, by the announcement that Mr. Bennett, late of St. Barnabas, was nominated as our future Vicar!

Evil counsellors during this period had been actively engaged, letters had been travelling far and near, and at length one had been despatched to Mr. Bennett, which found him on the continent, worshipping in communion with the Church of Rome, to invite him to return home and undertake the chief spiritual supervision of this large town.

We protested to the Patroness, we memorialised the Bishop, but in vain; and then we petitioned the Queen and both the houses of Parliament, that if they could not remove our grievance, they would at least prevent the recurrence of a like disorder. But after all that has been done and said the evil is not removed, the Patroness, the Bishop, and the nominee have triumphed, and the parishioners suffer. "Unfortunate Frome" indeed!

"Quicquid delirant reges, plectuntur Achivi!"

And we, the protestors, are decried as the persecuting party! We witness the disruption of that order and union which has long prevailed in the entire parish,-in some

*Pages 34, 35, &c. of Second Letter.

66

families the charities of the domestic hearth have been despoiled of their peace, our National schools, our public charities, have all been obliged to assume an attitude of defence. That affectionate intercourse which has hitherto existed between the parishioners and the head of the parish, or his representative, has been severed, and yet the intruder who has caused all this division considers himself the injured party, and addresses a letter to your Lordship sent persecution of a certain portion of the English Church." Innovators when resisted often call themselves the persecuted party, and it is probable that the certain men who came down from Judea and taught the brethren, and said "except ye be circumcised after the manner of Moses, ye cannot be saved," raised the same cry, when the apostles and elders of the church decided against them.

on the

pre

But let us review the causes of complaint which Mr. Bennett adduces: and the first is, that although he was required to quit the church of St. Barnabas, Pimlico, for "disturbing the peace of the Church and for practising Popish ceremonials," the same practices are continued in that church to the present day, and his successor remains there unscathed by episcopal authority. His words are, "At St. Barnabas, in the year 1850, accusations were brought against me to the effect that I was disturbing the peace of the Church; that I was guilty of practising Popish ceremonials; that I was leading people to the verge of the precipice;' that I was a Papist in disguise, and the like; and therefore I was driven forth from my spiritual charge. But, my Lord, in 1852,— at the very present moment,-St. Barnabas' Church, as well as St. Paul's, remain identically the same that they were. Incredible as it may seem, there is the same Bishop of the diocese now as then,-the same Prayer Book,-the same congregation, the same ceremonies,-the same doctrines,—and in no one respect of any material importance is there a deviation in the manner of conducting Divine Service from that which caused me to be pronounced by your Lordship and the Bishop of London, an unfit person to remain in the incumbency which I held. My Lord, I challenge you,-I

challenge the Bishop of London,-to point out any particular of rubrical order, or ceremonial, or doctrine, or practice, in which there is any material difference between the churches as they are now administered, and as they were administered in my own incumbency." (P. 6.)

It appears that this bold challenge was immediately accepted, not indeed by your Lordship, nor by the Bishop, but by the senior Curate of St. Barnabas, whose reply was published in the Morning Herald of September 22nd, 1852. It is too long to give in extenso, but the following extract will suffice to show the amount of dependance which is to be placed on Mr. Bennett's assertions, even when the reply comes from one who agrees at least in great part with him. The Herald says, "In reference to Mr. Bennett's letter, the following characteristic epistle appears in the congenial columns of a Tractarian contemporary.

"To the Rev. W. J. E. Bennett, Vicar of Frome. "My dear Mr. Bennett,

"I am much obliged to you for a copy of your second letter to Lord John Russell,' &c. (Half way down the letter,) 'I am sure you will think it no more than right that all parties should be informed of this other fact that in no case of those specified usages which the Bishop called on you to yield, is your practice and ours identically the same.' 1. We do not stand in the middle of the altar from the beginning of the Communion Service. We stand there only as the Rubric directs, from the prayer of consecration: and we do break the bread before the people. 2. The Clergy who assist do not kneel right and left of the celebrant, but at the sedilia, one coming forward to say the exhortation, invitation, and confession, at the south side. 3. The holy elements are delivered into the hands of the people, as indeed they were for the most part in your own time. There may be some few instances, even now, where the Clergy find it difficult to get the people to take the cup into their hands. 4. There is no invocation of the Blessed Trinity, but a Collect before the Sermon. 5. There is no use whatever by the Clergy of the

sign of the cross, except in the Office of Public Baptism of Infants. . . . . . . There are other points of difference. Such changes for instance, as the black gown in the pulpit, the prayers said outside the chancel, the Litanyfaldstool' laid aside, obeisances to the altar on quitting the chancel gates disused, changes which no one (as far as I know) demanded in your day of trouble, and the necessity of which in ours it would be difficult to defend.

"Believe me to be, my dear Mr. Bennett,

"Your faithful brother in Christ,

"JAMES SKINNER,

"Senior Curate of St. Barnabas, Pimlico." "

As we advance we shall find other statements made by Mr. Bennett equally inaccurate. In fact your Lordship will see that it is unsafe to take his assertions on trust.

Yet his main quarrel is with Mr. Horsman and the majority of the House of Commons. That any of his parishioners should have objected to his appointment to the Vicarage, might be annoying, but was not likely seriously to disturb the equanimity of so decided a mind as that of the rejected Incumbent of St. Barnabas. But that a vote of censure should have been virtually passed upon his conduct, and a belief of his unfitness to hold preferment in the Church of England, virtually expressed by a majority of 156 against 111, in our great national assembly, must appear important even to Mr. Bennett. Many also who were agreed on the main question, and condemned publicly the appointment to Frome, voted in the minority, as disapproving of the exact motion before the house.

Hinc illæ lacrymæ.

Two methods of causing the Protestant public to deprecate this judgment against him, occur to his mind, viz:—either to attempt to throw ridicule upon the house itself, or to endeavour to show that the judgment it arrived at was warped by false or overdrawn statements, not warranted by any substantial premises. With the first object he speaks of the late House of Commons in the following terms, " Happily for the