Page images
PDF
EPUB

are called the laws of the Church: that is to say, the rules which have been made by the bishops and clergy who are the spiritual officers of the Church. For the bishops and clergy, who have received the commission to act as ministers of religion, in their several stations, have from time to time, by virtue of that authority, put forth rules and orders for the celebration of public worship, and for the method of performing the different rites and ceremonies. The first instance of this you will find in the fifteenth chapter of Acts, where, upon some dispute arising as to what ceremonies were to be observed, "the apostles and elders came together for to consider the matter;" and, when they had agreed about it, they made rules or decrees accordingly. And from those days till now, from time to time, as occasion required, the bishops and clergy have met to make fresh rules, or such alterations as circumstances demanded. The Church of England has followed the example set forth in the scriptures; and, like all other churches, her bishops and clergy have made such rules as their duty to God and the people seemed to them to require. These are what are called the laws of the Church. Among other things, they arranged the Prayer-book. If you will look into this, you will find, at the beginning and ending of all the different offices, directions in small print, as to when and how and where those offices are to be used. And no man is allowed to become a clergyman, and no clergyman is allowed to have the care of a parish, without first undertaking to conduct the public worship, and the different offices of religion,

Prayer-book. Now turn to the office for the burial of the dead: and, at the beginning, you will find this instruction given, "Here it is to be noted that the office ensuing is not be used for any that die unbaptized, or excommunicate, or have laid violent hands upon themselves." This is the order which I have received on this subject from the authority of the Church, to which by the laws of God, I am bound to pay obedience. To this order I have been required repeatedly to promise obedience, and so imperative is the duty of the clergy to observe these rules, that one of our bishops hesitates not to say, "that neither a man's own private fancies, nor the solicitations of his parishioners, nor the example of others, nor the authority of the administrators of the law, would be sufficient to release him from the obligation by which the law itself binds him, and by which he has solemnly promised to be held1." Thus you see how solemnly the clergy are bound to obey the directions or rubric in the Common Prayer-book. The only thing which could, by any possibility, justify a clergyman in departing from the rules, would be if he thought that he consulted better for the good of religion, and the safety of his people by doing so. But though, in all probability, this might, in certain cases, be held sufficient to justify him; yet he would, in strictness of law, be liable to be called to account for it.

The question, then, that I had to ask myself on this melancholy occasion was, is there any thing in this case which will warrant me in departing from my

Bishop Mant's Clergyman's Obligations.

instructions? If I could have persuaded myself that the unhappy man was really a madman, I should have felt justified, in my own conscience, in burying him : because a madman who does not know what he does, is not held guilty for what he does: and it has always been allowed to bury such. But if I could not persuade myself of this, then it was contrary to my duty to bury him.

This is the point which will prove whether there was really a difference of opinion between me and the jury, or not. If the jury really believed the man to be a madman, or frantic, or destitute of the use of reason, then there is a difference of opinion between us. But if they did not think him so mad as all that, then there is no difference of opinion between us; and all this unhappy dispute has been caused by their not understanding what extent of madness was required, by the law, to justify a verdict of mental derangement. When I say that this is the degree of madness to which the jury, if they had been properly instructed, had to look, I am speaking on the authority of one of the greatest lawyers that ever lived in this country'.

And now, because many persons find a difficulty in understanding the nature of coroners' inquests, I will endeavour to explain that.

There are in this country two sets of laws; one for the Church; another for the State. The clergyman is the officer, in every parish, appointed by God to administer the laws of the Church; the coroner (in

these cases) is the officer appointed by the King to administer those of the State. Well, when a person is found dead, and the cause is not certainly known, it is forbidden, by the laws of the State, to bury him before an inquest has been held upon him: and if he destroyed himself, knowing what he did, both the laws of the Church, and the laws of the State, forbid the burial service to be used. The coroner comes first with his jury, and inquires whether the laws of the State forbid his receiving Christian burial. If he says no, then he issues his warrant to the clergyman, saying, you may lawfully permit his body to be buried; that is to say, I, on the part of the State, do not forbid it. It is then for the clergyman to inquire whether the laws of the Church do; for if the laws of the Church forbid it, then, whatever the coroner's verdict may be, he breaks his duty as a clergyman, if he uses the burial service over him.

How comes it, then, it will be asked, that persons in such a case do frequently receive burial? The answer is, because of late years the clergy have, through mistaken feelings, and (I think) inaccurate views, shrunk from the discharge of their duty in this respect. And what has been the consequence? Has there not been a fearful increase in the number of suicides? and are not these things connected? Surely there is reason to think, that if all the clergy had marked the detestable nature of this sin as the Church enjoins them, many who have committed it would have been deterred from it. But when people are led to consider that all is right if a coroner's inquest shall, as a matter of course, bring in a verdict of insanity,

what is there to check them from taking a step which, to those who have indistinct notions of religion, seems so easy a method of release from any of the troubles or discomforts of this world?

No doubt, the easiness with which verdicts of insanity are almost always returned in such cases, has placed the clergy in an unpleasant situation, and made it difficult for them to discharge their responsibility, without incurring the reputation of being harsh and uncharitable, and taking too much upon themselves. But it is their duty to look only to what the honour of religion, and the safety of their people, and the laws of the Church require of them, and then, through evil report and good report, to pursue their straightforward course. This I do believe, that if the coroners and their juries duly considered how much these easy verdicts encourage others to commit the same offence, and how much they hinder the clergy in the discharge of their duties, they would not be returned nearly so often as they are.

The reason why a clergyman cannot in safety act contrary to his opinion, if he happen to think differently from the jury, is, that he alone is responsible for what he does. "We must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, that every one may receive the things done in the body, according to that he hath done, whether it be good or bad." The jury cannot answer for him at the day of judgment; the jury cannot be punished for him, if he does wrong.

Look at the case in this light, my friends, and then judge for yourselves whether it is reasonable and right

« PreviousContinue »