Page images
PDF
EPUB

and affirmed in effect that the Scriptures of the Old and New Testament were not written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, and that they were not necessarily at all, and certainly not in parts, the Word of God; and then reference is made to the 6th and 20th Articles of Religion, to part of the Nicene Creed, and to a passage in the Ordination of Priests in the Book of Common Prayer. This charge, therefore, involves the proposition, that it is a contradiction of the doctrine laid down in the 6th and 20th Articles of Religion, in the Nicene Creed, and in the Ordination Service of Priests, to affirm that any part of the canonical books of the Old or New Testament, upon any subject whatever, however unconnected with religious faith or moral duty, was not written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit."

Guided by the Judgment we have thus referred to, we do not think the 11th charge contained in the 31st article of charge is so made out by the extract given from the appellant's work as to justify us in regarding that article of charge as established. The appellant asserts, indeed, at the end of a long passage, extracted in page 41, that all knowledge of God can only come from our own deep sense of what He requires us to do; and these words are associated with much disparagement of the Bible. But it is possible to interpret these words as meaning that the Bible itself should be of no effect in imparting a knowledge of God if that deep sense of what He requires us to do were absent. A sense in which the expression would be allowable, and, following the example set by the Judgment in the case of the Essays and Reviews, we think this interpretation in a quasi-criminal proceeding should prevail.

66

As regards the remaining charges contained in the following articles of charge, whatever force may be given to the word "authority" in the 6th Article of Religion as applied to the canonical books of the Old and New Testament," we are of opinion that, in order that the books (which are enumerated) should have any authority at all, it is not consistent with that Article of Religion for any private clergyman, of his own mere will, not founding himself upon any critical inquiry, but simply upon his own taste and judgment, to assert that whole passages of such canonical books are without any authority whatever, as being contrary to the teaching of Christ, as contained in others of the canonical books. We think that no private clergyman can do that which the whole Church is by the 20th Article declared to be incompetent to do, viz. expound one part of Scripture in a manner repugnant to another, and we need not go through the painful task of citing the numerous passages in the extracts where this is done by the appellant. We find whole chapters of the Gospel of St. John declared by the appellant on his own simple assertion, to be irreconcilable with the other Gospels, not on points unconnected with "religious faith and duty," to use the words of the Judgment in the case of the "Essays and Reviews," but in the most essential manner connected with both; and again, whole passages declared to be spurious on no other ground than that they do not approve themselves to the appellant's taste. We can entertain no doubt then that the charges contained in the 32nd, 33rd, and 34th articles of charge are abundantly established.

We have now fulfilled the duty of examining minutely the articles of charge exhibited against the appellant. We have not been unmindful of the latitude wisely allowed by the Articles of Religion to the clergy, so as to embrace all who hold one common faith. The mysterious nature of many

of the subjects associated with the cardinal points of this faith, must of necessity occasion great diversity of opinion, and it has not been attempted by the Articles to close all discussion, or to guard against varied interpreta tions of Scripture with reference even to cardinal articles of faith, so that these articles are themselves plainly admitted, in some sense or other, according to a reasonable construction, or according even to a doubtful, but not delusive construction. Neither have we omitted to notice the previous decisions of the Ecclesiastical Courts, and especially the judgments of this tribunal, by which interpretations of the Articles of Religion which by any reasonable allowance for the variety of human opinion can be reconciled with their language, have been held to be consistent with a due obedience to the laws ecclesiastical, even though the interpretation in question might not be that which the tribunal itself would have assigned to the Article.

We have also had careful regard to the explanations given by the appellant himself in Court of those of his writings from which the extracts contained in the articles of charge have been taken, in order to see whether the extracts convey to the mind the advised and definite opinions of the author, or whether their meaning can be modified by the context in a sense more consistent with the Articles of Religion, but we cannot find any indication of such being the case. We think that the extracts deliberately exhibit the opinions of the appellant, by which the Articles of Religion, with reference to original sin, the sacrifice and suffering of Christ, the Son of God, both God and man, to reconcile His Father to man, the Incarnation and Godhead of the Son, His return to judge the world, the doctrine of the Trinity, are plainly contradicted and impugned, and the Holy Scriptures are as plainly denied their legitimate authority, even on points essential both to faith and duty, by the process of denying their genuineness, not on any critical grounds, but avowedly because they contradict the appellant's private judgment.

We have not, in this our decision, referred to any of the Formularies of the Church other than the Articles of Religion. We have been mindful of the authorities, which have held that pious expressions of devotion are not to be taken as binding declarations of doctrine. But the appellant will, we think, himself feel how impossible it is that any society whatever of worshippers can be held together without some fundamental points of agreement, or can together worship a Being in whom they have no common faith. He himself seems to have experienced the difficulty in the remarkable passages extracted in page 42 of the Appendix, with reference to prayer in the name of Jesus Christ. The whole of the Formularies of the Church, and of its devotion, are based on the faith in one God, the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. In the daily services of the Church, both morning and evening, glory is ascribed at the end of each Psalm to this one God in Trinity, naming each person of the Godhead separately. Prayer constantly concludes with a reference to the mediation of Jesus Christ. Direct prayer is addressed to Jesus Christ in the daily service, morning and evening by the short prayer of "Christ, have mercy upon us." In the daily Morning Prayer, throughout a great portion of the Te Deum, prayer is made to the Son; and three times in a week, in the Litany, there is direct prayer addressed both to the Son and to the Holy Ghost, as well as to the Holy Trinity. In fact, a large portion of the Litany is addressed to the Son directly. It is not surprising, then, that there should be Articles distinctly supporting devotions, so fully impressed with a faith

in the intercession and power of the Son who is thus invoked. And it would be as contrary to morality as to law to direct the professors of any religion daily to offer prayer to One in whose divine power they have no faith, or to address as God One whom they believed to be only man.

The appellant, in his address to us, relied much on the absence of direct verbal contradiction in his writings to the words of the Articles of Religion, and asserted that, inasmuch as the Articles could not be all reconciled with each other, he might properly dwell on one view of an Article, which, from the inconsistent character of the Articles, would be opposed to the construction of another Article. The mode in which the appellant constantly misrepresents and caricatures the opinions from which he differs, no doubt accounts for his thus attributing inconsistency to statements of doctrine which he has misunderstood.

We are, on a perusal of the appellant's writings, driven to the conclusion, not removed by his arguments, that the appellant advisedly rejects the doctrines on the profession of which alone he was admitted to the position of a Minister of the Church. He disclaims all wish to reconsider his avowed and published opinions, and does not desire an opportunity of retracting any of his opinions. We are bound, therefore, to advise her Majesty that his appeal against the admission of the Articles should be dismissed with costs, and that, on the merits of the whole case, sentence of deprivation should be pronounced against the appellant, and that he should be condemned in the costs of the suit.

In pronouncing this decision their Lordships have assumed that the appellant adheres to the intimation, made by him on the conclusion of the argument, that he does not desire an opportunity of retracting the opinions which have now been condemned; but their Lordships are, nevertheless, unwilling to proceed to the last step of their duty if he do, within a week from this date, expressly and unreservedly retract the several errors of which he has been convicted.

Their Lordships would have followed the precedent afforded by Mr. Heath's case if the appellant had been present, and would have required his immediate decision, but they have been informed that Mr. Voysey's absence is occasioned by a sufficient reason.

II.

THE PURCHAS CASE.

THE Judgment of the Privy Council, in the Appeal of Hebbert v. Purchas, is another of the most important ecclesiastical judgments of modern times, affecting as it does the legality of the principal Ritualistic acts and observances which have lately become of frequent use in many English Churches. Mr. Purchas was Perpetual Curate of St. James's Church at Brighton. The articles of charge, which were the subject of appeal, were as follows:

:

I. That by an Act of Parliament passed in a Session of Parliament holden in the 1st year of the reign of Queen Elizabeth, chapter 2, and by another Act of Parliament passed in a Session of Parliament holden in the 13th and 14th years of the reign of King Charles II., chapter 4, and by another Act of Parliament passed in a Session of Parliament holden in the 28th and 29th

years of the Queen, chapter 122, and by the 14th, 36th, and 38th of the Constitutions and Canons Ecclesiastical treated upon by the Bishop of London, President of the Convocation for the province of Canterbury, and the rest of the Bishops and Clergy of the said province, and agreed upon, with the licence of his Majesty King James I., in their Synod, begun at London in the year of our Lord 1603, and ratified by his said Majesty's Letters Patent under the Great Seal of England, all Clerks and Ministers in Holy Orders are, among other things, bound to say and use the Book of Common Prayer, and Administration of the Sacraments, and other rites and ceremonies of the Church, according to the use of the United Church of England and Ireland, and that any Clerk or Minister in Holy Orders offending against the said Statute Law, Constitutions, and Canons, ought to be punished according to the gravity of his offence and the exigencies of the law.

II. That by the Laws, Statutes, Constitutions, and Canons Ecclesiastical of this Realm, and more particularly by or by virtue of the Statutes 1st Elizabeth, chapter 2, and 13th and 14th Charles II., chapter 4, and of the 58th Canon of the Constitutions and Canons Ecclesiastical in the last preceding article mentioned, every Minister of the Church in England, when saying the Public Prayers, or administering the Sacraments, or other rites of the Church, in parish churches, and other churches and chapels in England, is required to wear a decent and comely surplice with sleeves, with such hood as by the orders of their Universities are agreeable to their degrees, and being not Graduates, they are permitted to wear upon their surplices a decent tippet of black, but not of silk, instead of hoods; but that it is not lawful for such Ministers, or for any of them, when so officiating in parish churches, other churches or chapels in England, at the Public Prayers, or when ministering the Sacraments or other rites of the Church, to wear the following vestments, or any of them; namely, a cope, a chasuble, an alb with patches called apparels, tippets of a circular form on the shoulders, gold stoles, coloured stoles, a dalmatic, a tunic or a tunicle, a stole crosswise, that is, crossed over the breast, or a cap or covering for the head called a biretta.

III. That you, the said Rev. John Purchas, have been for many years past, and now are, a Clerk in Holy Orders of the United Church of England and Ireland, and that on the 27th day of June, in the year 1866, you were licensed or admitted as Perpetual Curate, or Minister, of St. James's Church or Chapel at Brighton, in the county of Sussex, and diocese of Chichester, and province of Canterbury.

XVI. That you, the said Rev. John Purchas, in the said Church or Chapel of St. James's, Brighton, aforesaid, on Whit Sunday, May the 16th, 1869, administered wine mixed with water instead of wine to the Communicants at the Lord's Supper.

XVII. That you, the said Rev. John Purchas, in the said Church or Chapel of St. James's, Brighton, aforesaid, on divers occasions (to wit, on Sunday, February the 7th, 1869; on Ash Wednesday, February the 10th, 1869; on Sunday, February the 28th, 1869; on Sunday, March the 14th, 1869; on Sunday, March the 21st, 1869; on Easter Sunday, March the 28th, 1869), during the Prayer of Consecration in the Order of the Administration of the Holy Communion, elevated the paten or one of the wafers on the Communion Table, for the Holy Communion, above your head, and permitted and sanctioned such elevation by the other officiating

Ministers, and took into your hands the cup, and elevated it above your head during the Prayer of Consecration aforesaid, and permitted and sanctioned the cup to be so taken and elevated, as aforesaid, by the other officiating Ministers; and that you also, during such Prayer of Consecration, knelt or prostrated yourself, and sanctioned such kneeling or prostrating by the other officiating Ministers; and that you also, during the whole of such Prayer of Consecration, stood at the middle of that side of the holy table, which, if the said holy table stood at the east end of the said church or chapel (the said table in St. James's Chapel, in fact, standing at the west end thereof), would be the west side of such table, in such wise that you then stood between the people and the said holy table, with your back to the people, so that the people could not see you break the bread or take the cup into your hand.

XX. That you, the said Rev. John Purchas, in the said Church or Chapel of St. James's, Brighton, aforesaid, on divers occasions (to wit, on Sunday, January the 31st, 1869; Sunday, February the 7th, 1869; Monday, March the 15th, 1869; on Sunday, March the 21st, 1869; on Easter Sunday, March the 28th, 1869; and Whit Sunday, May the 16th, 1869), in the administration of the Holy Communion, used wafer bread (being bread made in the special shape and fashion of circular wafers) instead of bread such as is usual to be eaten, and did administer the same to the communicants, that is to say, one such wafer to each of them.

XXV. That you, the said Rev. John Purchas, in the said Church or Chapel of St. James's, Brighton, aforesaid, on Sunday, December the 27th, 1868; on Palm Sunday, 1869; and on Whit Sunday, May the 16th, 1869; caused holy water, or water previously blessed or consecrated, to be poured into divers receptacles for the same in and about the said church, in order that the same might be used by persons of the congregation before and during the time of Divine Service, by way of ceremonial application thereof; and yourself used the same, or caused or permitted the same to be used by others.

XXXVI. That you, the said Rev. John Purchas, in the said Church or Chapel of St. James's, Brighton, aforesaid, on several occasions (to wit, Sunday morning, November the 1st, 1868; Sunday morning, November the 8th, 1868; Sunday morning, January the 17th, 1869; Sunday morning January the 31st, 1869; Sunday morning, February the 7th, 1869; Sunday morning, February the 28th, 1869; Sunday Morning, March the 14th, 1869; Monday morning, March the 15th, 1869; and Easter Sunday morning, March the 28th, 1869), used and wore a vestment called a chasuble while officiating in the Communion Service and in the administration of the Holy Communion, and on the said days and times, while present in the said church and yourself officiating, and while responsible, as Perpetual Curate or Minister thereof, for the due performance of Divine Service therein, sanctioned and authorized the wearing of a chasuble by other Clergymen while also officiating in the Communion Service and in the administration of the Holy Communion in the said church or chapel.

XXXVIII. That you, the said Rev. John Purchas, in the said Church or Chapel of St. James's, Brighton, aforesaid, on divers occasions (to wit, on Sunday, November the 8th, 1868; on Sunday, January the 17th, 1869; and other times) at Evening Prayer wore a scarlet stole embroidered with crosses over your surplice, and at Morning Service, on Tuesday, February the 2nd, 1869, wore a gold stole over a garment called an alb, and have usually within

« PreviousContinue »