« AnteriorContinuar »
The 7th article, as reformed, sets forth certain pas. Williams, which is contained in the 15th article of sages extracted from pages 60 and 61, and from pages charge. The words of Dr. Williams, which are in77 and 78, of the volume containing Dr. Williams's cluded in this charge, are part of a supposed defence Essay, and charges that, in the passages so extracted, of Baron Bunsen, against the accusation of not being Dr. Williams has advisedly maintained and affirmed a Christian. It would be a severe thing to treat lanthat the Bible or Holy Scripture is an expression of guage used by an imaginary advocate as advised devout reason and the written voice of the congregation speaking or teaching by Dr. Williams. Against such - not the Word of God, nor containing any special | a general charge as that of not being a Christian, topics revelation of His truth or of His dealings with mankind, of defence may be properly urged, although not in nor the rule of our faith.
conformity with the doctrines of the Church of EngDr. Williams has nowhere in terms asserted that land. But, even if Dr. Williams be taken to approve of Holy Scripture is not the Word of God; and the accu. the arguments which he uses for this supposed defence, sation, therefore, must mean that by calling the it would, we think, be unjust to him to take his words Bible “an expression of devout reason, and there as a full statement of his own belief or teaching on the fore to be read with reason in freedom," and stating subject of justification. that it is “the written voice of the congregation,” Dr. The 11th Article of Religion, which Dr. Williams is Williams must be taken to affirin that it is not the accused of contravening, states, “We are accounted Word of God.
righteous before God only for the merits of Our Lord Before we examine the meaning of these expressions, and Saviour Jesus Christ, by faith, and not for otr it is right to observe what Dr. Williams has said on own works or deservings.” The Article is wholly the subject of Holy Scripture in the second of the silent as to the merits of Jesus Christ being transferred passages included in this charge. Dr. Williams there to us. It asserts only that we are justified for the refers to the teaching of the Church in her Ordination merits of Our Saviour by faith, and by faith alone. Service, as to the abiding influence of “the Eternal We cannot say, therefore, that it is penal in a clergySpirit,” and then uses these words, “If such a Spirit man to speak of merit by transfer as a fiction, however did not dwell in the Church, the Bible would not be unscemly that word may be when used in connection inspired;" and again, “The sacred writers acknow. with such a subject. ledge themselves men of like passions with ourselves, It is fair, however, to Dr. Williams to observe that, and we are promised illumination from the Spirit that in the argument at the Bar, he repudiated the interpredwelt in them."
tation which had been put on these words, that "the Dr. Williams may not unreasonably contend that doctrine of merit by transfer is a fiction,” and he the just result of these passages would be thus given : explained fiction as intended by him to describe the -"The Bible was inspired by the Holy Spirit that phantasy in the mind of an individual, that he has has ever dwelt, and still dwells, in the Church, which received or enjoyed merit by transfer. dwelt also in the sacred writers of Holy Scripture, and Upon the whole, we cannot accept the interpretation which will aid and illuminate the minds of those who charged by the promoter as the true meaning of the read Holy Scripture, trusting to receive the guidance passages included in this 15th article of charge, bor and assistance of that Spirit."
can we consider those passages as warranting the The words, that the Bible is “an expression of specific charge, which, in effect, is that Dr. Williams devout reason, and therefore to be read with reason in asserts that justification by faith means only the peace freedom,” are treated in the charge as equivalent to of mind or sense of Divine approval which comes of these words :-“The Bible is the composition or work trust in a righteous God. This is not the assertion of of devout or pious men, and nothing more;” but such Dr. Williams. a meaning ought not to be ascribed to the words of a We are therefore of opinion that the judgment writer who, a few lines further on, has plainly affirmed against Dr. Williams must be reversed. that the Holy Spirit dwelt in the sacred writers of the Bible. This context enables us to say that the words, We proceed to consider the charges against Mr. "an expression of devout reason, and therefore to be Wilson. read with reason in freedom,” ought not to be taken in These have been reduced to the 8th and 14th articles the sense ascribed to them by the accusation.
of charge. The other articles of charge In like manner we deem it unnecessary to put any rejected by the Court below, or have been abandoned interpretation on the words, “written voice of the at the hearing before this tribunal. congregation,” inasmuch as we are satisfied that, what- In the 8th article of charge an extract of some ever may be the meaning of the passages included in length is made from Mr. Wilson's Essay, and the this article, they do not, taken collectively, warrant accusation is, that in the passage extracted Mr. Wilthe charge which has been made, that Dr. Williams son has declared and affirmed, in effect
, that the has maintained the Bible not to be the Word of God Scriptures of the Old and New Testament were not nor the rule of faith.
written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, and We pass on to the remaining charge against Dr. that they were not necessarily at all, and certainly not
in parts, the Word of God; and then reference is We proceed to the remaining charge against Mr. made to the 6th and 20th Articles of Religion, to part Wilson,-namely, that contained in the 14th article. of the Nicene Creed, and to a passage in the Ordina- The charge is, that in the portion of his Essay which tion of Priests in the Book of Common Prayer. is set out in this article, Mr. Wilson has advisedly
This charge, therefore, involves the proposition, declared and affirmed, in effect, that after this life and “That it is a contradiction of the doctrine laid down at the end of the existing order of things on this earth in the 6th and 20th Articles of Religion, in the Nicene there will be no judgment of God, awarding to those Creed, and in the Ordination Service of Priests, to men whom He shall then approve, everlasting life or affirm that any part of the canonical Books of the Old eternal happiness, and to those men whom he shall or New Testament upon any subject whatever, how then condemn, everlasting death or eternal misery ; ever unconnected with religious faith or moral duty, and this position is affirmed to be contrary to the Three was not written under the inspiration of the Holy Creeds, the Absolution, the Catechism, and the Burial Spirit."
and Commination Services. The proposition or assertion that every part of the In the first place, we find nothing in the passages Scriptures was written under the inspiration of the extracted which in any respect questions or denies that Holy Spirit is not to be found either in the Articles or at the end of the world there will be a judgment of in any of the formularies of the Church. But in the God, awarding to those men whom He shall approve, 6th Article it is said that Holy Seripture containeth everlasting life or eternal happiness; but, with respect all things necessary to salvation, and the books of the to a judgment of eternal misery, a hope is encourageal Old and New Testament are therein termed canonical. by Mr. Wilson that this may not be the purpose of In the 20th Article the Scriptures are referred to as God. “God's Word written”; in the Ordination Service, We think that it is not competent to a clergyman when the Bible is given by the Bishop to the priest, of the Church of England to teach or suggest that a it is put into his hands with these words, “Take thou hope may be entertained of a state of things contrary authority to preach the Word of God"; and in the to what the Church expressly teaches or declares will Nicene Creed are the words, "the Holy Ghost who be the case ; but the charge is, that Mr. Wilson adspake by the prophets."
visedly declares that after this life there will be no We are confined by the article of charge to the con- judgment of God, awarding either eternal happiness or sideration of these materials, and the question is, eternal misery,--an accusation which is not warranted whether in them the Church has affirmed that every by the passage extracted. Mr. Wilson expresses & part of every book of Scripture was written under hope that at the day of judgment those men who are the inspiration of the Holy Spirit and is the Word of not admitted to happiness may be so dealt with, as that God.
“the perverted may be restored,” and all, “both Certainly this doctrine is not involved in the state-small and great, may ultimately find a refuge in the ment of the 6th Article, that Holy Scripture containeth bosom of the Universal Parent." The hope that the all things necessary to salvation. But, inasmuch as it punishment of the wicked may not endure to all doth so from the revelations of the Holy Spirit, the eternity, is certainly not at variance with anything that Bible may well be denominated “Holy,” and said to is found in the Apostles' Creed, or the Nicene Creed, be “the Word of God,” “God's Word written,” or or in the Absolution, which forins part of the Morning “Holy Writ"; terms which cannot be affirmed to be and Evening Prayer, or in the Burial Service. In the clearly predicated of every statement and represen- Catechism the child is taught, that in repeating the tation contained in every part of the Old and New Lord's Prayer he prays unto God “that He will keep Testament.
us from all sin and wickedness, and from our ghostly The framers of the Articles have not used the word enemy, and from everlasting death"; but this exposi“inspiration” as applied to the Holy Scriptures ; nor tion of the Lord's Prayer cannot be taken as necessahave they laid down anything as to the nature, extent, rily declaring anything touching the eternity of or limits of that operation of the Holy Spirit.
punishment after the resurrection. The caution of the framers of our Articles forbids our There remain the Commination Service and the treating their language as implying more than is Athanasian Creed. The material passage in the Comexpressed ; nor are we warranted in ascribing to them mination Service is in these words :—“O terrible voice conclusions expressed in new forms of words involving of most just judgment which shall be pronounced upon minute and subtle matters of controversy.
them, when it shall be said unto them, Go, ye cursed, After an anxious consideration of the subject, we into the fire everlasting which is prepared for the devil find ourselves unable to say that the passages extracted and his angels." In like manner the Athanasian Creed from Mr. Wilson's Essay, and which form the subject declares that they that have done evil shall go into of this article of charge, are contradicted by or plainly everlasting fire. Of the meaning of these words “everinconsistent with the Articles or formularies to which lasting fire,” no interpretation is given in the formulathe charge refers, and which alone we are at liberty to ries which are referred to in the charge. Mr. Wilson consider.
has urged in his defence, that the word "everlasting," in the English translation of the New Testament, and judgment may be consistent with the will of Almighty of the Creed of St. Athanasius, must be subject to the God. same limited interpretation which some learned inen We desire to repeat, that the meagre and disjointed have given to the original words which are translated extracts which have been allowed to remain in by the English word “everlasting,” and he has also the reformed articles are alone the subject of our appealed to the liberty of opinion which has always judgment. On the design and general tendency existed, without restraint, among very eminent English of the book called “Essays and Reviews," and on divines upon this subject.
the effect or aim of the whole Essay of Dr. Williams, It is material to observe that in the Articles of or the whole Essay of Mr. Wilson, we neither can King Edward VI., framed in 1552, the 42nd Article nor do pronounce any opinion. On the short extracts was in the following words :
before us, our judgment is that the charges are not “* All men shall not bee sared at the length.'—Thei proved. also are worthie of condemnation who indevoure at this Their Lordships, therefore, will humbly recommend time to restore the dangerouse opinion that al menne, to Her Majesty that the sentences be reversed, and be thei never so ungodlie, shall at lengtht bee saved, the reformed articles rejected in like manner as the when they have suffered paines for their sinnes a cer. rest of the original articles were rejected in the Court tain time appoincted by God's justice.”
below, namely, without costs; but, inasmuch as the This Article was omitted from the Thirty-nine appellants have been obliged to come to this Court, Articles of Religion of the year 1562, and it might be their Lordships think it right that they should have said that the effect of sustaining the judgment of the the costs of this appeal. Court below on this charge would be to restore the Article so withdrawn. We are not required, or at liberty, to express any
At the conclusion of the judgment, at the delivery opinion upon the mysterious question of the eternity of of which the Archbishops of Canterbury and York final punishment, further than to say that we do not were not present, the Lord CHANCELLOR said, I am find in the formularies to which this article refers any desired by the Archbishop of Canterbury and the such distinct declaration of our Church upon the sub. Archbishop of York to state that they do not concur ject as to require us to condemn as penal the expres. in those parts of this opinion which relate to the sion of hope by a clergyman, that even the ultimate 7th article of charge against Dr. Williams and to the pardon of the wicked who are condemned in the day of 8th article of charge against Mr. Wilson.
attorney to say whether or not he has been guilty of 14 Jan. 1864.
an indictable offence? In the case of Attorney–Rule to Strike off the Rolls—Affidavits the Court refused to entertain a motion to strike an
Re - 5 B. & Ad. 1089, charging an Indictable Offence.
attorney off the rolls where an indictable offence had Upon a motion for a rule calling on an attorney to been charged, and in show cause why he should not answer the matters in
Short v. Pratt, 1 Bing. 102, certain affidavits, which affidarits in fact charge the the Court of Common Pleas, under like circumstances attorney with the commission of an indictable offence, refused to call upon an attorney to answer matters in the Court will not grant the rule prayed for, but will an affidavit.] grant a rule calling on the attorney to show cause why
[BLACKBURN, J.-On the other hand, in the more he should not be struck off the rolls.
recent case of A rchibald moved for a rule calling on an attorney the Court of Exchequer granted a rule nisi to strike
Stephen v. Hill, 15 M. & W. 28, to show cause why he should not repay to Hine and an attorney off the rolls, and afterwards made it Ledicott the sum of 997. paid by them to him, and absolute, where the affidavit charged an indictable why he should not answer the matters in certain affi
offence.] davits. The allegations in these affidavits amounted
Re Blake, 30 L. J. Q. B. 32, to a charge that the attorney had obtained the said
was also cited. sum of 991. by false pretences.
[COCKBURN, C.J.-How can we call upon an COCKBURN, C.J.-It is the duty of the Court to
protect the profession from dishonest members, and, viction under the hands and seals of R. H. Allen, since the cases differ, we will act upon the later autho. J. W. Smith, and J. H. Pease, Esqrs., three Justices rity, and will grant you a rule calling on the attorney of the county of Durham, in order that it might be to show cause why he should not be struck off the quashed. The conviction bore date the 23rd rolls.
February, 1863, and was founded on an information
laid under the 24 & 25 Vict. c. 109, by one R. Little, BLACKBURN and MELLOR, JJ., concurred. Rule nisi to strike off the rolls. against the defendant, as occupier of certain land on
the river Tees, and of a dam called the Dinsdale Dam, Note.—On the 30th of January cause was shown charging him with not having, within thirty-six hours against the rule, and the matter was referred to the of the commencement of the close season, caused to Master to report on the merits.
be removed the inscales, becks, tops and rails of all
cruives, &c., and all other obstructions to the free Q. B.
passage of fish in or through the cruives, &c., within } REGINA v. HODGSON. 30 JAN. 1864.
his fishery. The premises in question, and the nature
of the dam, are fully described in the case of Hodgson, Jurisdiction of Justices—Prosecution by the
appellant, v. Litlle, respondent (2 N. R. 79; 32 L. J. Justices adjudicating-Certiorari–13 Geo. M. c. 220), which was a similar information laid 2, c. 18, s. 5-Practice Salmon Fishery against the same defendant. Act, 1861.
It appeared from the affidavits in support of the
rule, that the said R. Little, the informer, was a The defendant was convicted by certain Justices upon water-watcher, appointed by the Tees Salmon Fishery an information under the Salmon Fishery Act, 1861. Landowners’ Association, which was a voluntary assoThe information was laid by a watcher in the employ of ciation formed in the year 1861, for the purpose an association of landowners formed for the purpose of of protecting the fisheries on the river Tees, and protecting the fisheries on the river Tees, and enforcing enforcing the provisions of the Salmon Fishery Act, thee provisions of the Salmon Fishery Act on that river. under which the present information was laid. It Of this association the Justices who convicted the defen- appeared, also, that all the magistrates who heard this dant were inembers, and at a mecting of the association
case and convicted the defendant were members of the hold previous to this conviction, a resolution, seconded association, and one of them had himself a right of by one of the convicting magistrates, was carried, by fishery in'a portion of the river. The case for the which, after expressing an opinion that the defendant's prosecution was conducted by Mr. Joseph Dodd, who acts were clearly illegal, it was resolved to enforce the
was a member of, and also the honorary secretary and luw against him. The prosecution was conducted by a
treasurer of the above-mentioned association. It solicitor who was the honorary secretary and treasurer appeared also that the association had issued circulars. of the association.
stating that it was clear in their opinion that the dam Held, that the Justices who convicted, being in reality in question was illegal. And a report had been prethe prosecutors, were not competent to adjudicate on the sented to the association after the previous conviction
of the defendant referring to it, and expressing the The defendant having been convicted on the 23rd of intention of the association to take all necessary steps. February, 1863, a notice was, on the 15th of August to enforce the law with respect to it. A resolution following, given to the Justices, intimating that it was adopting this report was seconded by J. W. Smith, the intention of the defendant to apply, on the 22nd of Esq., one of the convicting Justices, and wa carried A ugust, for a certiorari to bring up the conviction. This at the meeting. It did not appear that the members notice was given under the 13 Geo. 2, c. 18, s. 5, which of the association would be legally liable for the costs requires that the application for a certiorari shall be of the prosecution, but it was conceded on the argumade within six months after the conviction, and that, ment, that in case the prosecution failed, the members before applying, six days' notice in writing shall be of the association would probably make good the given to the Justices. On the 21st, the defendant's
expenses incurred by their officers. attorney left with the Judge's clerk the affidavit on which
On the 15th of August notice was duly given to the the application was founded. On the 22nd, which was Justices that the defendant intended to apply for a a Saturday, he again went to Judge's Chambers, but writ of certiorari on the 22nd of August following. being vacation time, the Judge attended only on Tuesdays On Friday, the 21st, the clerk to the defendant's and Fridays, and it was impossible therefore to obtain attorney attended at the Judge's Chambers, and left a hearing till the following Tuesday, when the Judge with the Judge's clerk the affidavits in support of the refused to make the order, on the ground that the appli- application, and the Judge's clerk told him to call cation was too late.
next day for the order. On the following morning the Held, that the application was in time, and that the attorney for the Justices attended at Judge's Chambers Judge ought to have made the order.
pursuant to the notice of the 15th of August, but the This was a rule for a certiorari to bring up a con- defendant's attorney did not meet him there. Later
in the day, however, the defendant's attorney's clerk these Magistrates who took part in the conviction were went to the Judge's Chambers, and learned that competent to exercise magisterial jurisdiction on the the papers were still before the Judge. It appeared occasion. The information against the defendant was that during the Long Vacation, at which time this for a violation of the Act for the Protection of Salmon application was made, the Judge only attended at Fisheries ; and it appears that the prosecutors were an Chambers on Tuesdays and Fridays. On the same day association of gentlemen who had an interest in the (Saturday) there was a m between the attorneys protection of the fishery of portions of the river Tees. for the prosecution and the defendant's attorney, at Of that association there were certain members present which it was agreed to adjourn the application to the acting as Magistrates, and they were, I think, virTuesday following. On Tuesday, the 25th, accord tually the prosecutors in the case, being members of ingly, the parties appeared before Byles, J., when the the association who were prosecuting. And it is imobjection was taken that the six months within which possible to say that those who are parties to criminal by the provisions of the 13 Geo. 2, c. 18, s. 5, the proceedings as prosecutors can at the same time act as application for a certiorari must be made, had expired
Justices. on the 22nd August. The learned Judge upheld the The only difficulty in the case is that raised as to the objection, and made no order, without prejudice to the time when the application was made. The Act of defendant's applying to the Court.
Geo. 2 says that any application for a certiorari must The affidavits also showed that the Justices had, on be made within six months, but then I think it was the application of the defendant, stated a case for the intended to give the parties the whole of that period, opinion of the Court of Common Pleas, and that such and that they are entitled to the last day as much as appeal was then pending before that Court.
to any other part of the time, though the application
must undoubtedly be made within the six months, Davison showed cause against the rule.
and the parties must take care that their machinery is 1st. As there is an appeal pending in the present ready. I think, however, they ought not to suffer case, there is no right to a certiorari until the appeal because the Judge before whom alone such application is determined,
could be made does not happen to be on that day atPaley on Summary Convictions, 361 ;
tending at Chambers in discharge of his duty. It Rex v. Sparrow, 2 T. R. 198.
would be enough if the, person applying has all his [Cockbury, C.J.-Inasmuch as the question of tackle ready, and intimates the purpose of his applicajurisdiction is preliminary, and goes to the root of all tion to the person attending at Judge's Chambers. It the proceedings, that must be determined before the appears that on the Friday the party attended at question whether the conviction was right.]
Chambers and left the affidavits, and it is positively 2nd. The application was not in time. The appli- sworn that he attended the next day to know what the cation on the 21st was too soon, as the six days' notice Judge had determined to do. It is not unlikely that he to the Justices had not expired ; and on the 22nd the thought it was an ex parte proceeding, which I think defendant's attorney did not attend at Judge's Cham- it was not, but it was not the less an application to the bers at the appointed time, but he arranged with the Judge because he did not bring himself into contact prosecutor's solicitor to attend on the Tuesday, which with the opposing party; though I must say that aJudge was clearly too late.
would exercise a wise discretion in seeing that notice 3rd. The Justices had no such interest as to oust had been given not only to the Justices but to the their jurisdiction.
parties interested, and that if those parties were not Manisty, Q.C., and H. Matthews, in support of the before him summonses should be issued to them. But rule.
still, though a Judge should insist on this course being It would lead to monstrous injustice if it were held pursued, I do not think that the application would be that these Justices, who had prejudged the case, having the less made if within the presented tine the person expressed a clear opinion that the defendant's acts conducting the defence had been to the proper quarter, were illegal, and who were practically the prosecutors,
and had there taken steps which virtually would amount were competent to adjudicate in this case.
to an application. The question, therefore, is whether The application was not too late, as the defendant had that has been done on the part of the defendant in this done all that it was possible for him to do within the case, and I think there can be no doubt that the clerk appointed time, and he ought not to be prejudiced by tion on the Friday and again on the Saturday, on
to the defendant's attorney did go to make his applicathe fact that the Judge only attended twice a week. They cited,
the whole, therefore, it seems to me that enough has Rex v. Inhabitants of Abergele, 5 Ad. & E. 1795.
been done to satisfy section 5 of the 13 Geo. 2, c. 18,
and that this rule should be made absolute. COCKBURN, C.J.-I am of opinion that this rule must be made absolute. It is impossible to hold con- BLACKBURN, J.-I am of the same opinion. Upon sistently with the principles established by the deci- the merits I entertain no doubt whatever. It appears sions, and which are of the essence of justice, that that at least one of the Justices was one of the parties