On this page

• Text (1)

  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.

  • 

    Untitled Article

• 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

    Bir William Scott . The charges , briefly , were that , in his Visitation Sermon , preached at Danbury , Essex , July 8 , 1806 , and afterwards published , he impugned the doerJnes of the -miraculous conception of the virgin Mary , the Holy Trinity , and the divinity and atonement of Christ . They were admitted by Mr . Stone .

    Sir John Nichol and Dr . Lawrence , for the prosecution , stated , that the statute of the 13 th of Elizabeth , enacts , that if any person shall advisably maintain or affirm any "doctrine directly contrary and repugnant to any-of the articles of religion , and shall persist in the same , and not revoke his error , he shall

    be deprived of his ecclesiastical preferments . Dr . JLawrence , we understand , made a respectful allusion to Mr . Lind « sey ' s sacrifice of his ecclesiastical possesdons and prospects to his conscience , contrasting" with it Mr . Stone ' s retaining his living , in spite of his virtual nonconformity , which , witn all possible respect for the reverend gentleman , he scarcely knew how to reconcile with sincerity .

    Mr . Stone pleaded his own defence . As soon as he begun , Sir William Scott intimated to him , thatrthe only legal defence he could make would be by shewing that he had not preached and published doctrines contrary to the established church . And upon ^ Mr . Stone ' s referring to the Bishop of London , as the instigator of the prosecution , and to Mr . Bishop , as the agent in ity Sir William took occasion to inform him ,

    that the Bishop was wholly unconnected with the affair , his name appearing in the citation only as a matter of form ; and that Mr . JSishop acted , not from choice , but from official duty , he being the King ' s Lawyer , and the same in thixt Court as the Attorney-General in the other Courts : We believe Sir William Scott to have meant and insinuated that the cause was undertaken at

    the'initance of the Government . This , in the opinion of the public in general , will be honourable to the present Protestant Ministry —our opinion on this , as well as some other points , is heterodox—we should have been as well pleased with Ic ^ s no popery and more toi / eration , Or m plainer and truer speech , less po-V ^ y and more " . Christianity . —The detence of IVJr . Stone occupied nearly the wme ground as his letters ia the Monthly ^"¦ poi itary ' y and his JLcttcr to the Bisl *> j >

    Untitled Article

    of London ; that is , his engagements with his ordaining Bishop . . : . _ , dress took up nearly two hours ... It contained some strong- and , striking remarks , and some . affecting- appeals . Mr . Stone appeared on . this occasion in a peculiarly interesting and honourable light . Even those that on dissentin g principles cannot bring themselves to approve the . continuance of H an Unitarian minister in a Trinitarian church * ' ? must admire his frankness , and boldness before his judges . He appeared as the confessor of Unitarianism . tie conceded , he concealed nothing " . He did not provoke severity , but neither did , he cringe to power . We cannot help thinking , that the gentlemen employed against nim must have wished that they hacfenot been constituted arbiters of spiritual matters . .

    As Mr . Stone had emplcy | ti | ntrCoun sel , Sir John Nichol said , - flBrhe * should hot be long in his reply . rfiNnsisted da Mr . Stone ' s general engagements to be faithful to the church—to £ hose engagements Mr . Stone had not been faithful —he therefore prayed for the judgment of the Court ?

    Sir William Scott then declared hintself called upon to pronounce the stntence of the law : viz . the privation of Mr . Stone of his benefice ; but as He wished every indulgence to be given to the reverend gentleman , he should defer sentence- till the next Court-day ; that he might have an opportunity of considering and revoking , his errors : unless a recantation were made before that

    time , the sentence of privation muit inevitably be passed . Thus then this affair is brought to an issue ; and before * his conies undei the * reader * s eye , Mr . Stone will in all probability be no longer a clergyman * or member of the Church of England : for we cannot apprehend that having proceeded so far , he will descend to any retractation or apology . His merit will now lie in suffering in a cause , in which he has been so active .

    Whether the friends , in the churcht of clerical liberty ; and , out of the church of the Unitarian doctrine , will suffer Mr . Stone to sink under the weight of his ' prosecution and hisjprivatlon , it is not for us to determine . He will very probably appeal from an Act of Parliament ; ( eironeously , as , appear ^ , considered obsolete ) to the public . This work is ° pen to him and to his friends . ^

    Untitled Article

    Intelligerice *~~ Vrosecution ofjtlr . IStone . 283

• Citation
  • Monthly Repository (1806-1838) and Unitarian Chronicle (1832-1833), May 2, 1808, page 283, in the Nineteenth-Century Serials Edition (2008; 2018) ncse.ac.uk/periodicals/mruc/issues/vm2-ncseproduct2392/page/55/