On this page
-
Text (1)
-
Untitled Article
Note: This text has been automatically extracted via Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software. The text has not been manually corrected and should not be relied on to be an accurate representation of the item.
-
-
Transcript
-
Note: This text has been automatically extracted via Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software. The text has not been manually corrected and should not be relied on to be an accurate representation of the item.
Additionally, when viewing full transcripts, extracted text may not be in the same order as the original document.
Untitled Article
Gee . Ill * the defying otu * iff tfie persofts in tfcfe Ti 4 ility t ^ fto c # 6 n ^( te . ^ * he Wo A *** question vtafc tfcefrefbtenot a Bbel . I li kp ^ fe ^ d , fettWeffei ? . ^^ the Cbfef Justice ^ tfirefctkm was ii 6 t corf & fctly ifeufed * 'att ^' W &&* rtW o & er Jiafges ( B & ytey and tfolroyd ) eonfined tbei ? oph & m eairtldu & fy ib Stati *^ , that the laagiiage contained in the work in qttestibn , ** Willed did Hbt ttieray deny the godhead of Christ , but stated Mm to be an itdjk ) tftGf artd a thiiMeTer ' in principle , was at fcomftioft taw , ntid still is , a libel /* But M * . Justice Befst , in htejtttfgnte & t ; though e 6 nfitkftig himself as f & f ^ sT direct opinkm gDes , to stating / «* that it Was art indictable , fcf ? ellc & to speak of Jesus Christ fn the manner that he is spoken of iff thif ^ dbR & ititfn , ** g $ e 9 more fully into the general tjlifcstiofi . We Will state the whttlfc jtidgtoem « 1
given in the Reports : « Bb $ t , J . My Liotd Ohtef Ju ^ tfc ^ repofteto-iid ^ iltMi he t 6 ! tf'ti & $ ttt ^ that it was an indictable offence to speak of Jesus Christ ill the fa & ttheV ttot he is Broken in the publication fof \ vhich this defendtmt fe i ^ ditrtfed . It
cannot admit of the least dotabt that this direcrtidn wa $ COttrebt . ' Itlie 83 Geo > III . c . l 60 > has made tio altleratit > n in rtie conlttion law i * elal | SVe ^ libeL If , previous to the passing of that statute , it WtfiiM ha ^ e been a Sbfel to deny , in afcy printed Worit ^ the divinity of the second ^ ertoft teAe Trl i ^ f , the same publication would be a W > el now . The f >& QeD » 111 . d . ' 1 ^ 0 ; ks W title expresses , is an Act to relieve persons who impugn the dacfrfhfc df Xhd
Trinity frotn certain penalties . If tve look at the boay of the Ai » t to s ^ ee ffbin what penalties such persons are relieved , we find that they ' fere tire penalties from which the 1 William and Mary , sess . 1 , c . 18 , e ^ tnpted ult Prot 6 staiit Dissent ^ s , except such as denied the Trinity , and the penalties o £ disabilities which the 9 and 10 William III . imposed on those who denied the TPrttilif - The 1 William and Mary , sess . 1 , c * 18 , is , as it has been usuall y called , aft Act of toleration / or one which allows Dissenters t 6 worship- Odd in the iftQ & g
that is agreeable to their religious opinions , and exempts them from punishment for non-attendance at the Established Church , and hbttCOhfomiity to its rites . The Legislature , in passing that Act , 6 ti \ f thought of easing th ^ consciences of Dissenters , and not of aHowing- them to attetn | Jt to we & keti the faith of the members of the Ghurch . The ' 9 and 10 William III . Was to
give security to the Government by rendering * men incapable of office whd entertained opinions hostile to the established religion . The only penalty imposed by that statute is exclusion from office ; and that penalty is tacftttreii by any manifestations of the dangerous opinion , withotit proof bit int & atiotf in the person entertaining it either to induce others to be of that Opinion , bl * in any manner to disturb persons of a different persuasion- This statute rested on the principle of the Test Laws , and did not interfere tvith tha
common law relative to blasphemous libels . It is not necessary fbf the to say , whether it be libellous to argue from the Scriptures against the divinity of Christ ; that is not what the defendant professes to do . He argues againsc the divinity of Christ , by denying the truth of the Scriptures . A work containing sUc : h arguments , published maliciously ( which the lury in this case have foundy is by the cdmratm law a libel ; and the Legislature had neper altered tbia la * Vy nor can It ever do so Whilst the Christian rei ^ AoH la
considered to be the basis of that law . ** The drift of the whole argument of the learned judge appfears to be 'tttigf that the common law jurisdiction over reliMons ofifeefces , wfeich alti tho ^ 6 6 f ewpressUn of opinion > has Aeverbe ^ ii totrehed by tire statutes oti ' thfe stlbj ^ et ; that the office of the latter has been to repress , not the expression of Otmii & i , but opinion itsfclf for sf » te ptirbo & es : that the Tolerattoti Act te-tteiUed ihzse out opmlm Itsftlt FOP sf » te ptir ^ o & es ; that the Toleration Act repcaiea xnese as to
acts as to Dissenters generally , feivin ^ tltei » Ojpen bfeifore pttnidlVtftent tot ^ xpre «« iifg « r ift£ & lfeMiti £ h ^ atil ^ i 3 p « n < yttS 5 that tbe Trinity Xfct vri & btie rtt the etitiie uot-t , diirectfed against eiitertftirvtn ^ nt wf opittfoto- n 6 t ni 6 ## pf & sstdn ° f it ; that cotts ^} tt « Lrty the teptttVoF it Repeals bnlf thfe strttfch \ tmch th ^ Legi « la « ti ^ ted mim for et « te ^ put ^ os ^ , ntrd lenrt ^ the iop ^ li impumm of the Trinity fc * % h ^ ToleTatiOtt A « lift tb & Difescrtte ^ mA Vlfete tfef ^ V TttStt * habte w puhfebraeik ^ tf tkfcy <> p£ toed tbei * mmiths t ^ aihsi th ^ E ^ tabtt ^ h ^ a Reli gion . This argument , so far as it reiatefTtoTOSfeeaters collectively , we may safely
Untitled Article
d
-
-
Citation
-
Monthly Repository (1806-1838) and Unitarian Chronicle (1832-1833), Dec. 2, 1823, page 9, in the Nineteenth-Century Serials Edition (2008; 2018) ncse.ac.uk/periodicals/mruc/issues/vm2-ncseproduct1714/page/33/
-