[To THE EDITOR OF THE "SPECTATOR."' SIR,—With reference to the
correspondence you have been publishing regarding the recent decision concerning the refusal of Holy Communion to Mr. and Mrs. Bannister may I point out that the claim advanced by some ecclesiastical authorities amounts to the following, viz., that it should be in the personal power of any incumbent, however well-inten- tioned and however harebrained, arbitrarily to inflict on any couple who are married, similarly to Mr. and Mrs. Bannister, a punishment which any Churchman must consider a terrible one for merely doing what, if they did not do, the law of the land would compel them to do, viz., to cohabit with each other? Incidentally also the incumbent brands the said couple as • See "Report," p. 67. $ See Anson's " Law and Custom of the Conatitni; Lion,•, vol. ii., Part II., pp. 222-3. I See " History of the English Church is the 19th Century" (Warro Cornish), Part I., p. 129. 1 EidadaLs v. Clifton, 2 P.n., 276.
notorious evil livers. Is this a fair statement of the claim put forward 'by those who support the refusal of Hcfly Communion?
Previous page
