THE PERSONALITY OF SATAN.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XII, Issue 4217, 20 May 1875, Page 1 (Supplement)

THE PERSONALITY OF SATAN.

I fFIMM Till - . " I'VILV TKLElsnAm."] A commission of <-tiouirv has been sitting in the chapter-house of the Cathedral, Bristol, to try the case, of Jenkins v. Cook. The plaintitf applied for the sacrament at Christ Church, Clifton, some time ago, and was twice refused by the vicar, the liev. F. S.. Cook, on the -round that he had expressed his disbelief in the personality of Satan and in the doctrine of el-rnal punishment. Mr. Jenkins then gave notice that he would apply once more as a communicant, and that if a-ain resisted, h- would try the legality of the refusal, but Mr. Cook again passed him The commissioners were the Archdeacon of Bristol. Canon K.indall; the Rev. Canon Mather, rural dean : P.ishop Anderson, vicar of Clifton ; the l>cv. Canon Cooper ; and the Rev. Canon Girdle>t..ue. Dr. Tristram appeared for the promoter, and !>r. Stephens for the respondent. After the communion had been received by the Re»istrar, Dr. Tristram, in opening thejease for the promoter, said that he appeared as counsel for Mr. Henry Jenkins, a gentleman residing at .'!. Vyvyan Terrace. Clifton, ill the parish of Christ Vhur-h. He was a member of the Church <:i En-land, and from the time when he became a resMcnt in Clifton had been in tiie habit o." atteiidin- the holy communion monthly. The respondent was the Kev. Flr.vel Smith Cook, who was vicar of Christ Church. He was informed that he was an • -blc and active nii'iistcr. and m-ch respected by his cmigregat'o-i. The complaint which 1 •.'hadto ,-übmit t<. th. ir consideration was that on Sunday, the Ith of October, in the present year—not' ith-tanding Mr. Jenkins liad given Mr. Cook, as the minister of his parish.notice that he intended to oiler himself to receive the holy communion on that Sunday, and although he came to the table e.\pectingto receivetli- communion,and desirous to receive it, in accordance with the requirements of the rubric —Mr. Cook deliberately passeil him by, and refused to administer the holy communion to him. Two days afterwards Mr. Jenkins lirough. the matter to the notice of the bishop, and his lordship thought lit to refer the subject to them under the .'trd and-Jth Viet., cap. Sti, c.vnmonly called the Church Discipline Act. It appeared to him that the case was of paramount importance t> the laity, for the purpose of deciding what wen- the limits to the power of a cler-yman to refuse or to admit to the holy e.vumunioii. As far as his research had gone, it was the lirst time i-inec the K. formation that a public eompl.iint had Veen mad- in an ecclesiastical curt a-.Ui.-r. a eler-yman for lefusin- to admit one e.f his ] arisliiouers to holy communioi!. Th-re was one ea.-o in the Common Law Report-, which was decided in the Uth year of the ivi-n of Charles 11.. about the year li'ii.-J, iinni- diat.-ly alter the passing of the Act of I'nifonnity, 'in which a eler-y----ma:i r-fu--.i to admini.-t.-r the holy communion. and th- p.iri-hioners i>r..ught an a.-tion a::-iinst him. It mi-lit be stv-c-t-d th:.t Mr.'.b iikiu-'s r.ni.dy would be an a.>-tio-i at common law, but he wa- sure the

.•..minis, "iicis w..uld a-re? with him that that v.-..ii1.l he a uii.st unsatisfactory ..no. Dr. Stephens li.T.- remarked that, t.i saw tiiin-. h-.- miu'lit iii'"i.im Irs k-anu-d friend that 1-..- ha.', ii., n.,ii.,ii ..f the action beiul»i..u_'lit at .-.1111111..11 law, either by iu<tn'l<tnin* it jinihii.iiii.il. ! Dr. Tristram said that lin.ler thc«e circumstances ho would niaU.j no furth.- ol,<erv.-i- ---; ti..!is nil..!! this point. I [is .luty was t.i I satisfy tin. commissioners that there was an , obligation imp.-.-d upon the- licv. Havel ! C.M.I;, -is ch-r.-yman <•: the- parish, t.. ad- . minist-r the holy o..niinr.ni.m. There was a rubric rc.|iiirin,.r every parishioner to communicate at hast three times a yesr. at which Kan.T was t<. 1.0 ~:i,-. Thy "rubric--, a- the e.,mmi-si.iners were w. 11 aware, ha.l the force ami the faet of an Act of Parliament, l.eenn.-.. the I'r.iyer 1 , ,.,0k and prayer rubrics v.ere i-fiiiiiiine.l liy the Statute of Tnfurinitv. Dr. Stephens : They are part anil parrel if tin- statute. Dr. Tristram : Therefore he siilunitri.! t., the C.iiirt with every e.uitiiU-iieu that it was obligatory on ev.-iy cl-i in mi tli;w..nls of the rnl.rie." to a.lminister the holy ward ami was .1.-, irons to rteeive it. unless lie eoiil,l k!iow eau-e tor iv.fnsintr tn.loso. | a tli- rnliries there wen: only these causes of ••xclii.-ioii. viz.. if the pel -..'ii in iMn-,tion was an ..|..n a.,,1 notorious evil liver, '..v ha.l donany «r.m- to his n.'-hhourhy w.r.'.or.lce.l. He understood that one of the cliariies av.-iin.-l hi- .-ii. lit u-as that he was a m, , d.-pravi r ~; th- (', ; of Common p,-,. lv ,. r _ -Mr. ,1.-.!;in.s was .!■--irons to Mate that" h-l.--licv .1 t!- • liil.! iiMiii.-.l all tliinj- n.-,-.----irv l'oi-.-alvation. and lii:i! after thai'the ln'-t w. rk that had eon), to his ha'id- was the Praver I;.. •!;. lie w,-nt Sunday aft.-r Sunday to the p.-n-i-h e!u:r.-!:. •: .nth alter n : .,nth in. • ';!••• !; 'in.- I. i..,e !'■.- tahh - ; :-, -,v - --- h..!\- eomm.ini..-.. .-.mi a - ;it!.-man who h.il -o a< i.-l in !,i-,.i'.1i.-d v.-,f .nsv-is n..' t p.-;-..ii «■!. .„, ihal C -mi ..rr.nv ~->; . .- r ~.:n V.---UI-! )■:- v' .- ■, ■„:.,,: •; ,\ '•,: ,V.T V th. I- ~-!; of Co ~■:, ~, I-,-.- er The f-.11..-.- ii,- . .-:. i,' . ;.-- v.-a: t!..-:i tak. n - - Mi- Clr, :. S. C1:,,-U. (r- 1 ,-i>trari v.as ,-.i1!,-d to p,ove th-I'. the I!. V. I- - . S. Co-,!; , ra < ,l !: l v in-til'it.,l a« vi.-ai- . f ("iris; C!.r.:eli. a:id tint N'>. " Vyvvan t-vra.- ■ wa- ::i the 1.-in-h ■,f Christ Cm-,'■!,. Mi-s !..,i,i •, C0r,!,.,, !:,.|-irion sa-d .-!i..- resi.hd at Xo. 1 (■.-iiiiln-t'lL'i—]»l:u-.-. Clifton, in tin- pari-h of Chri.-I Church, for more than a y.-ir. Sh.. was a i-. '.-.ti-■ ti of tli..- wif. of Mr .l<-nki-.s. »!• -..n.ot.-r ..i Mie suit. l!:ul 1 ' i'i I'm- ii.il.it or o,,. a >ion:illy v ; -itinMr. a-id Mrs .1.-,,! i,,--. >h.- h-d att.-mh d Chi!-- eh•:,-,-!, |,:,!e'-- :; !iv •■■:„:■ -1;,. i, :1 .l \. v \ :■• C.-ii.d,.-: !.-.■ i.h-r.. -h. .-v.t ,r Mi-..!,.:,1;i,,-', ;.--v. \\r. -'.-•li.i-r- -.- . ; .i :v_.ii!af :,• ■ ,-.:A:\-,• ■■-■ ■>•■"•■ <. !•- ! -. ' 1" -, ii. !i-..- I- ••: ..: ■■■<'■'■■ .■'■■■! ■-.-■ -,- ', '.- ;-i ::i h.m.l. a.;."; - .--'i'... : ■■• .-■ . ■■ , -I. ■ ..■.-.,-;.. !t «a, ii .- '■ .;,,' to ~ . ■ . ii . 1...1-,- , ~.,,,i::-ii...'i ■" ■"'■'<'■■ ■' ■'. ' . ..'I mle.'l -.-l-vie.. : -.t '■'■•i-t ''! i r--'i .». .I-:.•-.<.. t!i>- Ith «>i-toln-i----!a-i, -ii,.| Mr. .).-, !;,!,:. \va, I>us.1>us. ut at. thai " :v ■ Sh.. r.eeiv, I t!i, .-(.liimuni.in on that Sunday, and Mr. C,,,1i oflieiated. Mr. 'lli,.in:e., his i-nr.iti., r-ssistinl. Mr. .Jenkins a-eo-npauied her to tin- talilc and knelt down I,y her side. Mr. Cook administered, the hr.ad, and Mr. Thomas the cup. Did not ol.sc-rve Mr. Cook administer the bread to Mr. Jenkins : he passed ],j m l )y . Mr. Jenkins wan at that tiiin: kneeling before the communion rails. Sim received it and then Mr. Cook parsed l>y Mr. .lenkins. Mr. Thoma3 did not d.-liver the eui, f<, Mr. .Iciikin?. but ; ' , '' '.' ' U ' '" : ', ' '■'' ' ..... i,.,.-,l 's\v! J'.nkii-s iiad I

nine children, and they all attended the parish church. By Dr. Stephens : He only nsed the collects in the book produced (a small volume of collects prepared by Mr. Jenkins himself). »o' other collects were used. Another book, entitled "Selections from the Old and New Testaments," by Henry Jenkins, Esq., date.l ISl>">, was tho only book that was used at family prayers. l)r Stephens, in opening the case for the respondent, said that the parties were actuated by no feelings of resentment or disrespect towards each other. The substantial que-tion in this case was whether Mr. Jenkins had or had not committed a sp'i-itual od'ence bv depraving the inspired Word of Cod. the Book of Common Prayer, and more especially tlu*Order;of the Administration of Holy Communion and the Apostles'and Nicene Crreds, and the facts of the case were simply these : During last summer the respondent, Mr. Cook,' preached a course of sermons upon the theories advanced by the nationalistic party of the day, and on the Gth of July received a letter "from Mr. Jenkins, in which lie ventured to disagree with him. Some months before, Mr. Ccok had received from Mr. Jenkins the volume entitled, "Selections from the Old and New Testaments," which at the time he did not read ; but, on receipt of the letter, Mr. Cook read the volume with great care, and to his extreme surprise and sorrow discovered that Mr. J.-nkins's volume of selections was nothing more or less than a systematic, unworthy, and wicked mutilation of the Bible. Mr. Cook called upon Mr. Jenkins at his private residence, to point out to him the impropriety of his conduct, but received no satisfactory answer from him. After reading several letters that had passed between .Sir. Cook and Mr. Jenkins, in which Mr. Jenkins refused to have anything to do with Mr. Cook, Dr. Stephen's added that Mr. ' Cook went to Gloucester and saw the bishop ; but he, when in possession of the facts, would make no linal order. Referring to the book entitled " .Selections from the Old and New Testaments," he said it was the only one read at family prayers. And what was it? Jt omitted l! 15 entire chapters of the Old Testament, comprising the whole of the ligokfi of Ruth and Esther, the whole of the Song of Solomon except one verse and two portions of verses. It omitted from tho New Testament eight entire chapters, and 1,-JOl entire verses. It would be an unjustifiable encroachment upon the time of tho Court if he were to deal in ext- n.<o with all these omitted passages. It would tako him many days, lie would therefore remark in the tirst place generally that Mr. Jenkins bad omitted all passages i*u the Old and Nevr Testaments in which any mention was made of Satan under any name, or anything dealin; with evil spirits, including the cases of our' Lord's casting them out, and the accounts of the apostles doing so. In addition to this, In- has omitted all passages containing any plain mention of punishment after this life, and as an illustration of the lastmentioned principle of omission, attention might be directed to the SSth chapter of St. Matthew, which consisted of the parable of th* wise and foolish virgins, also the parable of the talents, and tho description of the judgment of the sheep and the goats. The "whole chapter was omitted by Mr. Jenkins, viz., on account of the judgments which were pronounced in each of these three cases. Mr. Jenkins discarded whole books from the canonical Scriptures, and this he had done on the ground that they were incompatible with religion or decency. He would call attention to special omissions by which he would clearly show that Mr. Jenkins had depraved the ("lllice for the Administration of the Holy Communion and the Apostles' and Nicene "Creeds. He had omitted passages which had always beun regarded as the choicest portions of Scripture and of the Holy Gospels ; and this for the reason which he had assigned. Mr. Jenkins's words were : —" hi their present generally received sense they arc quite incompatible with religion and" decency." Or. Stephens characterised the argument of Dr. Tristram as a wretched, contemptible, and miserable quibble. Dr. Tristram bavin-replied, andeontended that the omissions that Mr. Jenkins had made, considering that he believed in the iii.-piratiou of the' whole Scriptural books, did not constitute him a blasphemer or liiu-.b.-r.-r of the word of God. or a notorious evil liver.

The Commi.-si.mers decided that there were sunieient/.Wm.!/"•;•• -rounds for institutin- further proce.din-s in this case, which it i- expected will be tried at the Court of Arches.