« ZurückWeiter »
NOBLE v. VOYSEY (Clerk).
atonement or justification, that salvation is not death of Christ was a sufficient atonement for the through justification, and that the doctrine of justi- sins of the whole world; and that it appeased the fication by faith is contrary to the teaching of Jesus wrath of God entirely, and cancelled the curse Christ,” which is alleged to contravene the 2nd and against mankind. The arguments used by the 11th Articles of Religion: (see 18th art. of charge). Apostle might satisfy the Jews, but could scarcely Now, the 2nd Article of Religion asserts that the satisfy us; as, for instance, when he says, ' Christ “Son suffered to reconcile the Father to us and to hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being be a sacrifice not only for original guilt, but also made a curse for us,' and because He was crucified, for all actual sins of men;" and the 9th Article of he quotes from some Jewish record that'cursed is Religion in treating of "original or birth sin" says every one that hangeth on a tree,' as if the mere that "it standeth not in the following of Adam outward manner of Christ's death could of itself ... but that it is the fault and corruption of furnish any satisfaction to the human mind that every man that naturally is engendered of the that death removed a curse from the whole race. offspring of Adam, whereby man is very
gone That such an argument could be used by St. Paul from original righteousness, and therefore, in discloses to us how very deep down these Jews every person born into the world it deserveth God's were sunk in dogmatic unreasonableness. At all wrath and damnation.” We think that the plain events, he satisfied them that as by Adam's disomeaning of the 9th Article is to assert the exist- bedience men had fallen from God, so by the ence of original or birth sin, and to state that death of Christ the curse was removed, and by such sin exists in every one descended from Adam; His obedience He had rendered men righteous in that by it every man is very far gone from original the sight of God. Those who were dissatisfied righteousness; and that this sin “deserves God's with the old system at once embraced St. Paul's wrath and damnation.” To assert, therefore, that nobler and more rational views, and thankfully children are not by nature children of God's owned Jesus Christ as their Redeemer and Atone. wrath-that they are not separated from Him by ment, in a sense which, I do not scruple to declare, sin, nor under His wrath, appears to us plainly was never taught by our Lord himself. But inconsistent with the express language of the what could a Jew of Pagan do else ? . . . They Articles of Religion. It being also expressly laid (meaning ritualists or priests) are (most falsely, down that Christ suffered to reconcile the Father as it seems to me) convinced that we are all by to us, and to be a sacrifice for original sin, it nature in danger of endless suffering; and that, appears to us to be in contradiction to such unless we obey them in thought, word, and deed, statements to say that we are not under a curse, and unless they pray and sacrifice for us, and they that there is no curse to remove by the shedding pardon our offences, there is no hope for us beyond of the innocent blood of Christ. To assert also the grave. We do not, then, wish to be ungrateful that the doctrine of the fall of man is contrary to in declining their interference and in rejecting their the teaching of Jesus Christ, whereas the 9th control. We simply say to them, 'You have made Article plainly asserts the doctrine, appears to us a fatal error at the very outset of your principles. to contradict the Article. The question how far You have made an entirely false assumption at the a denial of the doctrine, that man being born in very beginning, and therefore we do not wonder sin is therefore an inheritor of endless suffering, that your course is altogether a foolish and misplainly contradicts the Articles, may be open to
You say we are by nature separated much
more doubt, regard being had to the decision from God, or under His wrath-chat He will not in Wilson v. Fendall on the subject of assertions hear our prayers, or forgive our sins until we have of a similar character with regard to the duration been baptised, and have submitted ourselves to of the punishment of the wicked; but with this
your authority.' We deny this entirely. We say exception it appears to us to be clear, that if the that we are not separated from God nor under His fourth charge be, in fact, established by the appel. wrath; that God is always with us all, and we are lant's writings, the offences therein alleged would His children by nature, and therefore we are near be offences against the law ecclesiastical. Do, and dear to Him all our lives through. With or then, the extracts set out in the 15th and 16th without your help we need no redemption in the articles of the charge bear out the charge? The sense in which you offer it to us. You are telling appellant in the first of these extracts says, by us we have got no friend here while outside your way of censure of the opinion, “St. Paul said temple; but we know that we are not alone, plainly that the whole human race should be set because our Father is with us, and you can offer free from the curse in consequence of what Christ no friend, no Saviour, no Comforter, so good and suffered— As in Adam all die, so in Christ shall true and faithful as He. We are therefore not all be made alive;"" and in the following extract afraid to disobey your injunctions, to tear up your he says, after citing the opinions of Augustine and creeds, and to despise your ordinances. For all of Milton, “ And though St. Paul's doctrine is the these are based upon a fundamental mistake.” If most merciful, yet it leaves the mind aghast at in the above extracts the appellant had been simply the picture of God's cursing the whole race of combating the extreme views which have been mankind, and only removing that curse after adopted by some divines, either with reference to being appeased by the shedding of innocent blood. what is commonly called Calvinism on the one This, of course, was simple Judaism, with a little hand or Ritualism on the other, we conceive he of the genuine Gos mixed up with it-an im. would have been fully entitled so to do; and we mense advance on the pre-existing views, but still should have been glad if we could have so reconfar, very far, from the sublime teaching of our ciled his writings with the doctrine contained in Lord himself.” The following extract should also the Articles and Formularies of the Church, but be considered : * He therefore (meaning the the extracts themselves are clearly intended to Apostle St. Paul) succeeded in teaching many, teach that in no sense are mankind naturally sepaboth Jews and Gentiles, who had superstitions rated from God, or under God's wrath, which he about sacrifice in common, to believe that the represents to be a false assumption at the very Priv. Co.]
NOBLE v. VOYSEY (Clerk).
beginning, and as occasioning the Ritualists, on made, than we men are, contrary to the 2nd, 4th, that account, to take a foolish and mistaken course. and 8th of the Articles of Religion.” Next, that It is true that he adds, as a portion of the error he asserts (24th article of charge), “That the wortaught by them, and which he assumes to be their ship of Christ is idolatry, and is inconsistent with doctrine, ** God will not hear our prayers, or forgive the worship of the true God, and that it is an us our sins, until we have been baptised, and have instance of holding up our hands to a strange God, submitted ourselves to your authority,” meaning and outrivals the worship of the one true God, and the authority of the priest; and if this had been draws away our highest homage and affection from all it might have admitted of explanation con- God to another," contrary to the 1st, 2nd, and 8th sistent with the doctrine of the Church ; but the Articles of Religion. Next, that he asserts (25th appellant makes his meaning clear, not only by article of charge), “That the very idea of the Inthe previously cited extract concerning St. Paul's carnation of the Son of God takes its rise in unbeteaching, but by what follows the last cited words, lief and springs out of absolute infidelity," contrary "We say that we are not separated from God, nor to the 2nd and 8th Articles of Religion. Next, under His wrath; that God is always with us all, that he asserts (26th article of charge), “That the and we are His children by nature, therefore we expected return of Christ to judge the world takes are near and dear to him all our lives through. its rise in unbelief, and springs only out of absolute We know that we are not alone, because our infidelity, and that such expectation is unreason. Father is with us, and you can offer no friend, no able, is opposed to the simplicity of the love of God services, no comforter, so good, and faithful, and as a Father, and is calculated to overthrow the true as He.” We cannot doubt that the appellant moral government of God," contrary to the 4th advisedly contravenes the doctrine of a change of and 8th Articles of Religion. And lastly, that he man's natural condition in which the Church asserts (27th article of charge), “That worship of represents him to be subject to God's wrath), the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost is the worship of through the sacrifice of Christ offered to reconcile three Gods, and that the worship of the Son and His Father to us, and that the 4th charge is of the Holy Ghost is idolatry, and that the belief therefore established. As regards the 5th charge in the Godhead of the Son and of the Holy Ghost, against the appellant, we think that to assert that as expressed in the Nicene Creed, weakens and mankind needs no justification, or that salvation disguises the belief in one God the Father, and is not through justification, or that justification obliterates the true name of God,” contrary to the by faith is contrary to the teaching of Jesus 1st, 2nd, and 8th Articles of Religion. The Articles Christ, is so plainly opposed to the very words of of Religion referred to in the above five articles of the 2nd and 11th Articles of Religion, that we need charge undoubtedly recognise the Godhead both of hardly cite them. We have the advantage of an the Son and of the Holy Ghost as co-equal with authoritative exposition, if any were required, of that of the father, and recognises them as being the 11th Article of Religion, in the case of Heath v. with him one God (1st Article of Religion); that Burder, before the Privy Council (15 Moo. P. C. 82; the Son took man's nature in the womb of the Freem. 235; 6 L. T. Rep. N. S. 562), where Lord blessed Virgin of her substance, and that the God. Cranworth, in delivering judgment, says: “The head of the Son and His manhood are united in evident meaning of the 11th Article is, that man is Christ (2nd Article of Religion); that the Son accounted righteous, which in the Article is treated ascended into heaven, and there sitteth until He as the same thing as being justified before God, returns to judge all men at the last day (4th not for his own merits, but for the merits of our Article of Religion); and the 8th Article of Saviour by faith in Him-i.e., that man is admitted | Religion says that the Nicene Creed, Athanasian to the favour of God not for his own works, but Creed, and the Apostles' Creed are to be thoroughly for the merit of his Saviour and by faith in received and believed. If, therefore, the last five Him—i.e., by man's faith in our Saviour, how- articles of charge be proved, they are plainly resoever faith is to be defined." The following pugnant to the Articles of Religion. We think extracts from the appellant's book appear to us it impossible to read the following passage or clear contradictions of these Articles of Religion: extract contained in the 21st article of charge with“He” (meaning the Saviour) “never even hinted at out coming to the conclusion that the 6th charge such a doctrine as that of the fall of man, or the against the appellant is made out : “ And so God, atonement by sacrifice or justification by faith. He the great unseen Creator, has wedded to Himself never taught that men needed to be accounted the great visible universe, and out of that mystical righteous before God, or needed any mediator to marriage has come as offspring the human family propitiate His wrath, or to draw them to Himself. -a race of beings noble even as animals, but surAll these notions were Jewish, and Christ never passing all we yet know of created life in being gave any sanction or encouragement to them that born of God-very God of very God-begotten not I have been able to discover.' And again : “ Sin- | made, a statement as true of all of us as of Him cere sorrow for sin is enough to make a man quite who was called the first-born among many brethreconciled and at peace with God; at least, so our ren.” The extracts cited in the 21st article of Lord teaches. We do not therefore need any atone- charge in pp. 32 and 33 of the appendix, clearly ment nor any justification. We need no atone- describe the worship of Christ as idolatrous, and ment, for God requires none." These six heads of thus the 7th charge made in the 24th article of charge complete the first of the three classes of charge is also established. We may cite for this pur. charge, and we will proceed to the second class- pose the following, among other extracts, from pp. viz., those relating to alleged errors as to the 33, 34 : “At the time when Jesus Christ the Lord of Incarnation and Godhead of Christ. Five articles men, appeared on earth, religious feelings towards of charge (the 23rd to the 27th inclusive) allege God, in the hearts both of the Jew and Pagan, were these errors—first, that the appellant asserts (23rd such as to render impossible any repose in the bosom article of charge), “That our Lord Jesus Christ is of the Creator. None could conceive of Him as no more Very God of Very God, begotten, not even actuated by tender feelings, or as even guided Priv. Co.]
NOBLE v. VOYSEY (Clerk).
by laws of justice such as were common amongst them before they can adopt the idea that God has
So the Christ in His life of pity and kind- sent some one to visit them. And if that one Man ness began to be worshipped and loved as infi- who came was very God of very God in a sense in nitely nearer and dearer to human hearts than any which all other men are not, His going away again Deity whom men had ever worshipped before. after a short human lifetime, proves that absence Not only was this perfectly natural, but under the still more painfully; and it cannot be wondered at circumstances it was infinitely creditable to man- that His return to earth should be looked for and kind that they should worship and adore such a longed for with the most passionate eagerness of one as Christ was, instead of the Jehovah known the soul. If God could leave the long ages of to the Jews, and the Zeus and Jupiter known to human life deserted by Him before the coming of the Greeks and Romans. Since the days of some Christ, and then, after the little space of thirtyof the Psalmists, their purer ideas of Jehovah had three years, could leave mankind again for thou. become miserably corrupted, and a whole system sands of years more in tne same desolate desertion, of propitiatory sacrifices had taken the place of then He is not the
Father of men, and we might their sensible and manly devotion. . . . . But as then question if He is even our friend.” Insoon as ever the notion gained ground that Jesus deed, the author in an extract contained in Christ was engaged on man's behalf, in assuaging p. 24 (articles of charge, No. 9) candidly states, “I the Divine wrath, all the love and trust of men found that I could not hold to the true Fatherhood rushed in a torrent towards Him, and they were of God if I did not give up some of the doctrines quite content (as well they might be) to adore of so-called Christianity. The doctrines of mediatheir Redeemer, and leave their Creator further off tion, intercession, atonement, isolated incarnation, than ever. I do not wonder at this. The wonder and the expected return of Jesus to earth are all, would have been if men had not clung to Christ, if more or less, opposed to the perfect harmony and they had refused to worship so glorious a manifes. simplicity of the love of God as a Father." As tation of Divine love and goodness. Yet, surely, regards the 10th charge contained in the 27th this is not what Christ would have of us. I always article of the charge against the appellant, being thought that He came to bring us to God. What- the last of the general class relating to the Incarever else may be recorded in the Gospels, most nation and Godhead of Christ, we think it is surely it is there recorded that He said all he proved by the following passage, Take away" (that could say, and did all He could do, to make men is from the book of Common Prayer)“what we can feel the fatherly love of God for us all, to make most heartily join in, and the greater part, as well known the Father in Heaven, and to win back as the most important part, of the service would affrighted men from their ghastly dread. Jesus be expunged. For the sake of this, then, we may Christ desired and pressed upon us all to worship well bear for a time with the blemishes, weak. the Father— His Father and our Father, His God nesses, and minor superstitions which the Church and our God;'—and none will dare to say that He of Rome bequeathed to us when we parted comever stepped in between men and their Maker to pany at the last reformation. We need not hesi. beguile their highest allegiance to Himself, to tate at the repetition of any creed which makes us hide the Father's face, or to close the portals of say as its first words, I believe in one God, the the Father's home. Belief in all these miracles Father Almighty, Maker of Heaven and Earth, (meaning the miracles recorded in the New Testa- and of all things visible and invisible.' Any ment), and in these angelic messages, and in these clause added thereto which seems to weaken or to wonderful births was impossible, unless there had disguise that first grand utterance may well be been first in men's minds belief in an absent God tolerated, considering the changing times in which --in a God who was not immediately and con- we live, for the sake of the cardinal, and central stantly present in the world and among men. The and most vital principle upon which all the rest is, very idea of incarnation itself, which means Deity or is supposed to be, based." The four remaining coming from heaven, and dwelling in an individual charges against the appellant constitute the last man for some years, implies a belief that God does general class of his alleged errors, viz., his deprav. not, nor ever did, dwell in the hearts of all men. ing of scripture; and they are as follows :-That This belief, and a belief in other miracles, are not the appellant has promulgated, in derogation and peculiar to Christianity; they are common to all depraving of Holy Scripture, the doctrine that the the religions of the world. The Brahmins have revelation of the knowledge of God by means of their nine incarnations of Vishnu, hich, in their any book is impossible; that all true knowledge of way, are splendid conceptions of Divine love and God comes directly from the law of God written sympathy." As regards the charge contained in in men's hearts; that all knowledge of God comes the 25th article of charge, the last cited passage only from men's own sense of what He requires with reference to the incarnation is sufficient them to do ; and that the only true revelation posproof. As regards the charge contained in the sible by God to man is through the sense of God's 26th article of charge the following extract from presence, and is originated in the heart of man inp. 35 will suffice :-“But the Fatherhood of God dependently of God's written Word (31st article of strikes more deeply at the prevailing views than charge). That he has asserted that in God's Word this. The common notion about the coming of a written, Holy Scriptures, and Holy Writ, there are God into the world once, and His expected return found manifest, palpable, and irreconcileable conto judge the world, turns entirely upon the belief tradictions, and many places which cannot be exin an absent God. It takes its rise in unbelief. plained but so that they be repugnant to others These notions of a God coming to dwell amongst (32nd article of charge). That he has asserted, in men in human form after thousands of years' | derogation and depraving of Holy Scripture, that absence from them, then departing, after a short the authority of the Gospel, according to St. John, life on earth, and not returning for thousands of is doubtful, and that the said Gospel ought not to years more, only spring out of absolute infidelity. be applied to establish any doctrine, and that Men must first be convinced that God is away from , whole chapters of the said Gospel are crowded MAG. Cas.-VOL. VII.
Noble v. VOYsey (Clerk).
with passages which represent Jesus Christ as in parts, the Word of God; and then reference is speaking words which He never could have made to the 6th and 20th Articles of Religion, to spoken, and which, if spoken, would not have been part of the Nicence Creed, and to a passage in believed (33rd article of charge). That he has the Ordination of Priests in the Book of Common asserted that the Gospel according to St. John Prayer. This charge, therefore, involves the procontains passages which can only be expounded position, that it is a contradiction of the doctrine so that they be repugnant to each other or to other laid down in the 6th and 20th Articles of Reli. places of God's Word written, or Holy Scripture, gion, in the Nicene Creed, and in the Ordination and that the character of our Lord Jesus Christ as Service of Priests, to affirm that any part of the there set forth is quite irreconcileable with the idea canonical books of the Old or New Testament, of His being a Teacher sent from God, and is upon any subject whatever, however unconnecentirely different from the character of the Christ ted with religious faith or moral duty, was not of the other Gospels (34th article of charge). written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit." The first, second, and fourth of the offences alleged Guided by the judgment we have thus referred to, in the last mentioned articles of charge are stated we do not think the 11th charge contained in the to contravene the 6th and the 20th Articles of Re 31st article of charge is so made out by the exligion, and the 13th to contravene the 6th Article tract given from the appellant's work as to justify of Religion; and each of the said offences is also us in regarding that article of charge as established charged to be an assertion of doctrine inconsistent The appellant asserts, indeed, at the end of a long with certain portions of the Book of Common passage, extracted in page 41, that all knowledge Prayer, set forth in the subsequent articles of of God can only come from our own deep sense of charge. The 6th Article of Religion lays it down what He requires us to do; and these words are that there never was any doubt in the Church of associated with much disparagement of the Bible. the authority of the canonical books of the Old and But it is possible to interpret these words as New Testaments, and that the Church applies meaning that the Bible itself would be of no effect them to establish doctrine. Whilst the 20th in imparting a knowledge of God if that deep Article of Religion declares " that it is not lawful sense of what He requires us to do were absent-for the Church to ordain anything that is contrary a sense in which the expression would be allupto God's Word written, nor may it so expound one able; and, following the example set by the judg. portion of Scripture that it be repugnant to ment in the case of the Essays and Reviews, we another.” Now it is very important upon this think this interpretation in a quasi-criminal prohead of the inquiry to consider the judgment ceeding should prevail. As regards the remaining delivered by Lord Westbury in the case of charges contained in the following articles of Essays and Reviews, (Williams v. The Bishop charge, whatever force may be given to the word of Salisbury, and Wilson v. Fendall (ubi. sup.) "authority” in the 6th Article of Religion “ as In considering one of the charges against applied to the canonical books of the Old and New Dr. Williams, in that case the judgment states the Testament,” we are of opinion that, in order that case thus :-“ The words that the Bible is 'an ex the books (which are enumerated) should have any pression of devout reason, and, therefore, to be read authority at all, it is not consistent with that with reason in freedom,' are treated in the charge Article of Religion for any private clergyman, of as equivalent to these words:- The Bible is the his own mere will
, not founding himself upon any composition or work of devout or pious men, and critical inquiry, but simply upon his own taste nothing more; but such a meaning ought not to and judgment, to assert that whole passages of be ascribed to the words of a writer who, a few such canonical books are without any authority lines further on, has plainly affirmed that the Holy whatever, as being contrary to the teaching of Spirit dwelt in the sacred writers of the Bible. Christ as contained in others of the canonical This context enables us to say that the words 'an books. We think that no private clergyman can expression of devout reason, and, therefore, to be do that which the whole Church is, by the 24th read with reason in freedom,' ought not to be Article declared to be incompetent to do, viz., taken in the sense ascribed to them by the accusa. expound one part of Scripture in a tion. In like manner we deem it unnecessary to repugnant to another; and we need not go through put any interpretation on the words 'written voice the painful task of citing the numerous passages of the congregation,' inasmuch as we are satisfied in the extracts where this is done by the appel. that whatever may be the meaning of the passages
lant. We find whole chapters of the Gospel of included in this article, they do not, taken collec St. John declared by the appellant, on his own tively, warrant the charge which has been made that simple assertion, to be irreconcileable with the Dr. Williams has maintained the Bible not to be the other Gospels, not on points unconnected with Word of God nor the rule of faith.” The judgment, “religious faith and duty,” to use the words of the therefore, is express in saying that the ground for judgment in the case of the Essays and Reviews, regarding the statements of Dr. Williams as not ex but in the most essential manner connected with ceeding the just limits allowed by the Articles of both ; and again, whole passages declared to be Religion was, that he did not state the Bible to be spurious on no other ground than that they do not the composition of devout men and nothing more. approve themselves to the appellant's taste. We So, in considering the charge against Mr. Wilson, can entertain no doubt then, that the charges conthe following passage occurs (p. 129) :-“In the tained in the 2nd, :33rd, and 34th articles of charges 8th article of charge an extract of some length is are abundantly established. We have now fulfilled made from Mr. Wilson's essay, and the accusation the duty of examining minutely the articles of is, that in the passage extracted Mr. Wilson has charge exhibited against the appellaut. We have declared and affirmed in effect that the Scriptures not been uumindful of the latiinde wisely allowed of the Old and New Testament were not written by the Articles of Religion to the clergy, so as to under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, and that embrace all who hold one common faith. The they were not necossarily at all, and certainly not mysterious nature of many of the subjects associ
Pitts v. KINGSBRIDGE HIGHWAY BOARD.
ated with the cardinal points of this faith, must, of Ghost, as well as to the Holy Trinity. In fact, a necessity, occasion great diversity of opinion, and large portion of the Litany is addressed to the Son it has not been attempted by the Articles to close all directly. It is not surprising then, that there should discussion, or to guard against varied interpreta- be articles distinctly supporting devotions, so fully tions of Scripture with reference even to cardinal impressed with a faith in the intercession and power articles of faith, so that these articles are them- of the Son who is thus invoked. And it would be selves plainly admitted, in some sense or other, as contrary to morality as to law to direct the according to a reasonable construction, or according professors of any religion daily to offer prayer to even to a doubtful, but not delusive construction. One in whose Divine power they have no faith, or Neither have we_ omitted to notice the previous to address as God, One whom they believed to be decisions of the Ecclesiastical Courts, and especi- only man. The appellant, in his address to us, ally the judgments of this tribunal, by which relied much on the absence of direct verbal coninterpretations of the Articles of Religion, which tradiction in his writings to the words of the by any reasonable allowance for the variety of Articles of Religion, and asserted that, inasmuch human opinion can be reconciled with their as the Articles could not be all reconciled with language, have been held to be consistent with each other, he might properly dwell on one view of a due obedience to the laws ecclesiastical, even an Article, which, from the inconsistent character though the interpretation in question might not be of the Articles, would be opposed to the constructhat which the tribunal itself would have assigned tion of another Article. The mode in which the to the article. We have also had careful regard to appellant constantly misrepresents and caricatures the explanation given by the appellant himself in the opinions from which he differs no doubt court of those of his writings from which the accounts for his thus attributing inconsistency to extracts contained in the articles of charge have statements of doctrine which he has misunderbeen taken, in order to see whether the extracts stood. We are, on a perusal of the appellant's convey to the mind the advised and definite writings, driven to the conclusion, not removed by opinions of the author, or whether their meaning his arguments, that the appellant advisedly rejects can be modified by the context in a sense more the doctrines on the profession of which alone he consistent with the Articles of Religion, but we was admitted to the position of a minister of the cannot find any indications of such being the case. church. He disclaims all wish to reconsider his We think that the extracts deliberately exhibit the avowed and published opinions, and does not opinions of the appellant, by which the Articles of desire an opportunity of retracting any of his Religion, with reference to original sin, the sacrifice opinions. We are bound, therefore, to advise her and suffering of Christ, the Son of God, both God Majesty that his appeal against the admission of and man, to reconcile His Father to man,
the articles should be dismissed with costs, and Incarnation and Godhead of the Son, His return that, on the merits of the whole case, sentence of to judge the world, the doctrine of the Trinity, are deprivation should be pronounced against the plainly controverted and impugned, and the Holy appellant, and that he should be condemned in the Scriptures are as plainly denied their legitimate costs of the suit. In pronouncing this decision authority, even on points essential both to faith their Lordships have assumed that the appellant and duty, by the process of denying their genuine- adheres to the intimation, made by him on the ness, not on any critical grounds, but avowedly conclusion of the argument, that he does not because they contradict the appellant's private desire an opportunity of retracting the opinions judgment. We have not, in this our decision, which have now been condemned; but their Lord. referred to any of the Formularies of the Church ships are, nevertheless, unwilling to proceed to other than the Articles of Religion. We have the last step of their duty if he do, within a week been mindful of the authorities, which have held from this date, expressly and unreservedly retract that pious expressions of devotion are not to be the several errors of which he has been convicted.
taken as binding declarations of doctrine. But Their Lordships would have followed the pre• the appellant will, we think, himself feel how cedent afforded by Mr. Heath's case if the appel
impossible it is that any society whatever of lant had been present and would have required his worshippers can be held together without some inmediate decision, but they have been informed fundamental points of agreement, or can together that Mr. Voysey's absence is occasioned by a worship a being in whom they have no common sufficient reason. faith. He himself appears to have experienced the Proctors for the promoter, Moore and Currey. difficulty in the remarkable passages extracted in Proctors for the defendant, Shaen and Roscoe. 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
ROLLS COURT. based on the faith in one God, the Father, Son,
Reported by HENRY PEAT, Esq., Barrister-at-Law. and Holy Ghost. In the daily services of the Church, both morning and evening, glory is
May 26, 29, and June 5, 1871. ascribed at the end of each Psalm to this one God
Pitts v. KINGSBRIDGE HIGHWAY BOARD. in Trinity, naming each person of the Godhead separately. Prayer constantly conclades with a Highway Board-Power to remove shingle from reference to the mediation of Jesus Christ. Direct beach--General Highway Act (5 & 6 Will. 4, c. 50), prayer is addressed to Jesus Christ in the daily 88. 51 and 52-Respective liabilities of contractor service, morning and evening, by the short prayer and employer. of “ Christ have mercy upon us." In the daily A special custom to take shingle from the beach above morning prayer, throughout a great portion of the high water mark for the repairing of the highways Te Deum, prayer is made to the Son; and, three of the parish, is bad as to such portion of the times in a week, in the Litany, there is direct beach as is private property, being a custom of a prayer addressed both to the Son and to the Holy profit à prendre in another man's land.