[Pg 1]
CHRIST’S BODY PRESENT BY CONSECRATION, ANDOFFERED IN THE SACRAMENT OF THE ALTAR.
A LETTER
TO
THE REV. JOHN W. H. MOLYNEUX,
BY
EDWARD J. PHIPPS,
RECTOR OF STANSFIELD.
LONDON:
LONGMANS, GREEN, READER AND DYER.
SUDBURY: HENRY S. PRATT.
1865.
[Pg 3]
Stansfield Rectory, Oct. 13th, 1865.
My Dear Mr. Molyneux,
I have read with much interest your correspondencewith the Bishop of Ely on the subject of Altar Lights, andas the course which the Bishop has taken, makes it of seriousimportance to every clergyman, especially to those in thediocese of Ely, I have been giving it my best consideration.
I believe the facts were as follows:—The Bishop hadgiven notice to hold a confirmation in S. Peter’s Church,Sudbury, on the 1st May last, being the festival of S. Philipand S. James.
According to your custom you prepared for the celebrationof the Holy Communion, and as the Bishop was stayingat your house, informed him of it, of course anticipatinghis attendance.
His Lordship, however, intimated that he understoodyou had Lights on the Altar at the Communion, that he objectedto them, and in consequence, after discussing thematter with you, ended by absenting himself altogetherfrom the service.
Some time after, his Lordship sends you Dr. Twiss’sopinion as given in your correspondence—pronounces AltarLights illegal, and informs you that though he acquits you[Pg 4]of wilful disobedience on account of your ignorance of theLaw, yet that no other course was open to him but thatwhich he had adopted, viz., to abstain from Communionwith you, and therefore in future, with any other clergymanwho may presume to introduce or retain them.
I am moreover informed that in accordance with thisarrangement, his Lordship has intimated his intention totransfer the place of holding his visitation at Sudbury, fromS. Peter’s to All Saints, that is to say from a Church whereto say nothing more, Morning and Evening Prayer are saiddaily throughout the year, to a Church where this most positiveand essential Law of the Church, is wholly and habituallyset at nought.
I certainly had not considered that the question ofAltar Lights was of such vital importance. The Bishop hasnot even personal knowledge of their being used, and yetwithout even complaint made, without legal investigation ortrial, you are at once subjected to the heaviest punishment itis in the power of the Church to inflict—you are cut off fromCommunion with your Bishop, ipso facto excommunicate.
This result makes it, I repeat, highly important thatit should be thoroughly ascertained, whether and upon whatgrounds Altar Lights are illegal.
I believe the ordinary authority quoted for the use ofAltar Lights, is that they were “in use” in the second yearof Edward VI., and that the Rubric of our present CommonPrayer, directs all such ornaments to be retained, as were“in use” in that year by authority of Parliament.
In the case of Liddell v. Beal, the Crown by its[Pg 5]supremacy has decided that the ornaments here spoken ofare confined to those