Page images
PDF
EPUB

1810, as ensign in the 49th Foot, and

SIR JAMES SCARLETT. served with that regiment till November, 1843, when he retired on half-pay on ac- General Sir James Yorke Scarlett, count of ill-health. He served in Canada C.C.B., was the second son of the first at the actions of Fort George, Stoney Lord Abinger, many years Chief Baron Creek, and Plattsburg, and also at the of the Exchequer. He was born on the Cape of Good Hope and in Bengal. He 1st of February, 1799. He entered the commanded a brigade at the storm and army in the year 1818, having obtained a capture of the heights above Canton, and commission in a Hussar regiment; he for his services there he was nominated subsequently exchanged to the Carbineers, a Companion of the Bath. He subse- and in 1830 was appointed

Major in the quently commanded the troops at Ningpo, 5th Dragoon Guards. He became a in the absence of the Commander-in- colonel in the army in 1851; at the comChief; and was afterwards appointed an mencement of the Russian war, in 1854, Aide-de-camp to the Queen. He attained was appointed to the command of a field rank in 1854, became a full General brigade of cavalry, and in the following in 1868, and was appointed to the year he was promoted to the command of colonelcy of the 49th regiment of Foot in the cavalry division. General Scarlett 1861.

was among the foremost at Balaklava, and was wounded before Sebastopol, and

for his services in the Crimea was nomiADMIRAL RAMSAY.

dated a Knight Commander of the Bath,

and also a Commander of the Legion of Sir William Ramsay, K.C.B., son of Sir Honour. In October, 1865, he was apAlexander Ramsay, of Balmain, Kincar

pointed to the command of the troops at dineshire, was born in 1796, and entered

Aldershot, which he held till 1870. He the navy in 1809. He was present at the

became a Major-general in 1854, and battle of Navarino, in 1827, and served

Lieutenant-general in 1862, and was apas first lieutenant on board the “ Atholl,”

pointed to the colonelcy of the 5th on the coast of Africa. In 1831, while

Dragoon Guards in 1860 ; in 1869 he was in command of the “ Black Joke” tender,

promoted to the Grand Cross of the Order he fell in with, and after a long action,

of the Bath. Sir James was for several boarded and carried the “Marinerito,” a Spanish slaver brig, of 303 tons, equipped

years honorary Colonel of the 40th Mid

dlesex, and also of the 3rd Lancashire in complete man-of-war order. He at.

Rifle Volunteers. He died on the 6th of tained Hag rank in 1864, and became a

December. full admiral in 1870. He was nominated a Knight Commander of the Order of the Bath in 1869. Sir William died at Edin.

THE BISHOP OF VICTORIA. burgh, on the 3rd of December.

The Right Rev. George Smith, D.D., MRS. RYVES.

first Bishop of Victoria, died on the 14th

at the age of 56. The first few years of Mrs. Ryves, whose case was frequently his clerical life were passed in parochial before the law courts as claiming to be work in Yorkshire, but he soon resolved recognized as a princess of the blood to devote himself to missionary labours, royal, died on the 7th inst., at the age of and in 1844 was nominated to a station 74. She was daughter of John Thomas at Hong Kong. This mission he worked Serres, a painter, and marine draughts- with such extraordinary assiduity and man to the Admiralty, and grand- success that the church rapidly extended, daughter of one of the original Royal

and it was determined to establish an Academicians. Her mother believed, episcopal see, to include the island of or pretended herself to be the Princess Hong Kong and the congregations of the Olive of Cumberland, daughter of his Church of England in China. Dr. Smith Royal Highness Henry Frederick, Duke was consecrated the first bishop in 1849, of Cumberland, brother to George III. and continued to discharge the duties of Mrs. Ryves was married to Anthony his office until 1865, when ill-health comThomas, son of Captain Ryves, of Ran- pelled his retirement. Bishop Smith was ston Hall, Dorset, but had obtained a the author of several books of travel in divorce from him in the Ecclesiastical the Chinese countries, as well as of somo Court.

theological works.

REMARKABLE TRIALS.

I.

THE VOYSEY CASE.

This celebrated ecclesiastical case, involving a charge of heresy against the Rev. Charles Voysey, Vicar of Healaugh, Tadcaster, and instituted by the Archbishop of York, was argued before the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in November, 1870.

On the 14th of June, 1869, the Bishop of London issued a commission under the Church Discipline Act, to his Vicar-General and certain clergymen, and by a report, dated the 10th of July, 1869, the Commission reported that there was sufficient prima facie ground for instituting further proceedings against the appellant, for the commission of an offence against the law ecclesiastical, by having printed and published, within the diocese of London, certain books, in which he maintained doctrines contrary and repugnant to the Articles of Religion and the Formularies of the Church of England.

The Archbishop of York thereupon requested the official Principal of the Chancery Court of York to issue a citation or decree under the seal of the Court, citing the appellant to appear and answer certain articles; and on the 28th day of July, 1869, a citation was accordingly issued.

The appellant appeared, and articles were exhibited on behalf of the respondent.

The articles were thirty-eight in number.

Article 1 stated that, by the laws, statutes, constitution, and canons ecclesiastical of this realm, all clerks and ministers in holy orders of the United Church of England (hereinafter called the said Church) are required in their preachings, teaching, writings, and publications, faithfully and without reservation, to adhere to and maintain the doctrines of the said Church as set forth in the Thirty-nine Articles of Religion, agreed upon by the Archbishops and Bishops of both Provinces, and the whole clergy in the Convocation holden in London in the year 1562, for the avoiding of diversities of opinions, and for the establishing of consent touching true religion, and ratified by royal authority, and in the book entitled "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 England and Ireland; together with the Psalter, or Psalms of David, and the Form and Manner of Making, Ordaining, and Consecrating of Bishops, Priests, and Deacons” (hereinafter called the Book of Common Prayer): and that any minister or clerk in Holy Orders of the said Church who shall maintain or affirm, or promulgate, or declare in his preaching, teaching, writings, or publications, any doctrine contrary or repugnant to or inconsistent with any of the doctrines of the said Church, as contained in the said Thirty-nine Articles of Religion, and the said Book of Common Prayer, is by the said laws, statutes, constitutions, and canons ecclesiastical, to be punished and corrected according to the gravity of his offence, and the exigency of the law.

The 2nd article alleged that the appellant had been for some years past, and now was, a clerk in holy orders, and that in the year 1864 he was licensed to perform the duties of perpetual curate of the perpetual curacy of Healaugh, in the county, diocese, and province of York.

The 3rd, 4th, 5th, and 6th articles charged that the appellant printed, published, and set forth, within the diocese of London, a book entitled " The Sling and the Stone for the year 1867;" and a certain other book entitled “The Sling and the Stone for the year 1868;" and a certain other book entitled “ The Sling and the Stone for January, 1869;" and a certain other book entitled “The Sling and the Stone for February, 1869.”

The 7th, 8th, and 9th articles of charge contained passages taken from the appellant's works, “The Sling and the Stone.” The material passages will be found referred to in the judgment.

The 10th article alleged that in the passages set forth in the 7th, 8th, and 9th articles the appellant had maintained, or affirmed and promulgated the doctrine, position, or opinion, that Christ had not made an atonement or reconciliation for sin, and has not been made a sacrifice to reconcile His Father to us, or a doctrine, position, or opinion to that effect; which said doctrine, position, or opinion, is contrary and repugnant to, and inconsistent with those parts of the 2nd, 15th, and 31st of the Articles of Religion respectively, and those parts of the Book of Common Prayer respectively set out in the 14th article of charge.

The 11th article alleged that in the passages set forth in the 7th, 8th, and 9th articles, the appellant had maintained or affirmed, and promulgated the doctrine, position, or opinion, that there is no need of any atonement or sacrifice, nor any place for such in the purpose of God, or a doctrine, position, or opinion, to that purpose or effect, which said doctrine, position, or opinion, is contrary and repugnant to and inconsistent with the 2nd, 15th, and 31st of the Articles of Religion respectively, and those parts of the Book of Common Prayer respectively set out in the 14th article of charge.

The 12th article alleged that the passages set forth in the 7th, 8th, and 9th articles, the appellant had maintained, or affirmed and promulgated, the doctrine, position, or opinion, that Christ did not bear the punishment due to our sins, nor suffer in our stead and for us, and that to think that He did, or that it was necessary that He should so suffer, is infinitely erroneous and dishonouring to God, and is the most revolting of all the popular beliefs, which doctrine, position, or opinion is contrary and repugnant to or inconsistent with the 3rd and 15th Articles of Religion respectively, and those facts respectively of the Book of Common Prayer set forth in the 14th article of charge.

The 13th article charged that in the passages, and in each of them set forth in the 7th, 8th, and 9th articles of charge, the appellant had maintained, or affirmed and promulgated, the doctrine, position, or opinion that the commonly-received doctrine of intercession and mediation by Christ, and atonement or reconciliation to God by the death of Christ, are all opposed to the perfect harmony and simplicity of the love of God, and to the teaching of Jesus Christ Himself, or a doctrine, position, or opinion to that purport or effect; which said doctrine, position, or opinion, so maintained, or affirmed and promulgated, by the appellant as aforesaid, is contrary and repugnant to, or inconsistent with, the 2nd, 7th, and 31st of the Articles of Religion respectively, and those parts respectively of the Book of Common Prayer set forth in the 14th article of charge.

The 14th article set out the Articles of Religion and Formularies of the Church alleged to have been contravened by the appellant in the passages set out in the 7th, 8th, and 9th articles of charge. Articles 15 and 16 set out other passages from the appellant's work, " The Sling and the Stone," the material passages of which will be found in the judgment. The 17th article alleged that in the passages set forth or referred to in the 15th and 16th articles the appellant had maintained, or affirmed and promulgated, the doctrine, position, or opinion that mankind are not by nature born in sin and the children of God's wrath, and are not separated from God by sin, and under His wrath, or under a curse; and that they are not in danger of endless suffering, nor is there any curse to remove by the shedding of the innocent blood of Christ; and that the doctrine of the fall of man is contrary to the teaching of Jesus Christ, or a doctrine, position, or opinion to that purport or effect, which said doctrine, position, or opinion, so maintained or affirmed and promulgated by the appellant as aforesaid, is contrary and repugnant to, or inconsistent with, the 2nd and 9th of the said Articles of Religion, and those parts respectively of the Book of Common Prayer which are set forth or referred to in the 19th article of charge.

The 18th article alleged that in the passages set forth or referred to in the 15th and 16th articles the appellant had maintained, or affirmed and promulgated, the doctrine, position, or opinion that mankind need no atonement or justification, that salvation is not through justification, and that the doctrine of justification by faith is contrary to the teaching of Jesus Christ, or a doctrine, position, or opinion to that purport or effect; which said doctrine, position, or opinion, so maintained, or affirmed and promulgated, by the appellant as aforesaid, is contrary and repugnant to, or inconsistent with, the 2nd or 11th of the said Articles of Religion respectively and the Homily in the said 11th article mentioned, and that part of the Book of Common Prayer which is set forth in the 19th article of charge.

The 19th article set forth the Articles of Religion and the formularies contravened by the passages contained in the 15th and 16th articles of charge.

Articles 20, 21, and 22 set out other passages from the appellant's work, The Sling and the Stone,” the material parts of which are referred to in the judgment. Article 23 alleged that in the passages recited and referred to in the 20th, 21st, and 22nd articles of charge the appellant had maintained, or affirmed and promulgated, the doctrine, position, or opinion that our Lord Jesus Christ is no more very God, or very God begotten, not made, than we men are, or a doctrine, position, or opinion to that purport or effect, which said doctrine, position, or opinion is contrary and repugnant to, or inconsistent with, the 1st, 2nd, 4th, and 8th of the Articles of Religion respectively, and those parts respectively of the Book of Common Prayer which were referred to in the 28th article of charge.

Article 24 alleged that in the passages set forth and referred to in the 20th,

21st, and 22nd articles of charge the appellant had maintained, or affirmed and promulgated, the doctrine, position, or opinion that the worship of Christ is idolatry, and is inconsistent with the worship of the true God, and that it is an instance of holding up our hands to a strange god, and outrivals the worship of the one true God, and draws away our highest homage and affection from God to another, or a doctrine, position, or opinion to that purport and effect; which said doctrine, position, or opinion is contrary and repugnant to, or inconsistent with, the 1st, 2nd, and 8th of the Articles of Religion respectively, and those portions respectively of the Book of Common Prayer which were set forth or referred to in the 28th article of charge.

Article 25 alleged that in the passages recited and referred to in the 20th, 21st, and 22nd articles of charge the appellant had maintained, or affirmed and promulgated, the doctrine, position, or opinion that the very idea of the incarnation of the Son of God takes its rise in unbelief, and springs out of absolute infidelity, or a doctrine, position, or opinion to that purport and effect; which said doctrine, position, or opinion is contrary and repugnant to, or inconsistent with, the 2nd and the 8th of the Articles of Religion, and those parts respectively of the Book of Common Prayer set forth or referred to in the 28th article of charge.

Article 26 alleged that in the passages recited and referred to in the 21st and 22nd articles of charge the appellant had maintained, or affirmed and promulgated, the doctrine, position, or opinion that the expected return of Christ to judge the world takes its rise in unbelief, and springs only out of absolute infidelity, and that such expectation is unreasonable, is opposed to the simplicity of the love of God as a Father, and is calculated to overthrow the moral government of God, or a doctrine, position, or opinion to that purport and effect; which said doctrine, position, or opinion, is contrary and repugnant to, or inconsistent with, the 4th and the 8th of the Articles of Religion, and those parts of the Book of Common Prayer set forth in the 28th article of charge.

Article 27 alleged that in the passages recited and referred to in the 20th, 21st, and 22nd articles of charge, the appellant had maintained or affirmed and promulgated the doctrine, position, or opinion that the worship of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost is the worship of three Gods, and that the worship of the Son and of the Holy Ghost is idolatry, and that the belief in the Godhead of the Son and the Holy Ghoet, as expressed in the Nicene Creed, weakens and disguises the belief in one God the Father, and obliterates the true name of God, or a doctrine, position, or opinion to that purport or effect; which said doctrine, position, or opinion is contrary and repugnant to or inconsistent with the 1st, 2nd, 5th, and 8th of the Articles of Religion respectively, and those parts of the Book of Common Prayer set forth in article of charge 28.

The 28th article of charge sets out the Articles, and the parts of the Book of Common Prayer alleged to be contravened by the passages contained in the 20th, 21st, and 22nd articles.

Articles 29 and 30 set out further passages from the appellant's works, “The Sling and the Stone,” the material parts of which will be found in the Judgment.

Article 31 alleged that in the passages set out in the 29th and 30th articles of charge, the appellant had maintained or affirmed and promulgated, in derogation and depraving of the Holy Scripture, the doctrine, position, or

« ՆախորդըՇարունակել »