On this page
- Departments (1)
-
Text (3)
-
Untitled Article
-
4 INTELLIGENCE.
-
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
( 43 ? ) &u ^ . ja . £ "! ' > -
4 Intelligence.
4 INTELLIGENCE .
Untitled Article
Proceedings in . Chancery with regard to the Meeting House at Wolverhamptou ^ deeply affecting tlie Property of Unitarian Congregations .
SIR , BEING accidentally in the Court of Chanc ery , at the opening- of the late case on the subject of Protestant Dissenting'foundations , I took a note of it , ( particularly of the Lord Chancellor ^ judgment , ) which I send you for the purpose of insertion , if you consider it as I do , most important .
* m I will add a few observations suggested by it . 1 st . The case seems tp decide that the Court will , in carrying Dissenting foundations into effect , consult the original intent as to worship and doctrine of the founder , and not suffer even the whole of the congregation to divert the trust from
that precise object $ and that as a rule of construction of such deeds , where they do not express any particular form of doctrine , the Court will look to what doctrines were , at the time of the foundation , legal or tolerated , and conclude that the founder did not intend to establish a system that was illegal , as 17 nitarianism undoubtedly was previously to the repeal of the laws for the protection of the Holy Trinity . On this head I would observe , that there
were only two other courses that the Court could have adopted in administering these trusts , both of which , perhaps , would have " been more agreeable to Dissenters-than the © n , e ad op ted , viz . either to have considered all d issent as illegal at common law , and therefore ( though the Court is by the recognition of Drasenters by law obliged to carry into effect trusts for their benefit ) to have contented itself with merely securing the trust for Protestant Dissenting worship , in the general sense , leaving the majority to
settle how that worship should be carried on , apd not considering itself as judicially bound to measure degrees of ( what is in its eyes ) error : —or , secondly , to have recognised the principles of disseat , ( namely , the rig ljt of free inquiry and judgment on religious subjects , considering' the Scriptures as tKe QttJy rule of faith , and the doctrine of to-day as not at all binding * for the
morrow , but liable at all times to cbang-e with the progress of knowledge » u < l the views of the congregation , ) and where the deeds prescribed no doctrine or form of worship , put merely that ; of Protestant pisse . n ^ ersj to have left ( as the true principles , of Protestant Dissent pug-fat to do ) doctrines out of the question , the congregation for the time
Untitled Article
P » T being , being considered as the persons is . tended by the founders to have th « benefit of the trust , and thu « making the &&W follow opinion , iustead of making opinion follow the low .
The Court has chosen , neither of these courses : perhaps it was never to ljave been expected that it should , especially if they were not pressed upon it , and therefore trust deeds , where the founders intend to establish an institution on Protestant Dissenting principles , ought to specify what they understand them to be ; and if it were thus prescribed that the opinion of the congree-ation , for the time being , should be the opinion suDoorted bv the trust * the Court
must carry it into effect . Trust < teeds , where that is the intent of the founds * , must take care of this in future . It may be further observed , bowevei ? * that the question cannot be considered as being finally settlecf upon proper axgfnjgajent on both sides , for the counsel for the defendants seem to have bee » taken by surprise , and to have merely occupied themselves in contending , that tbe point ( wbicfc in reality turned out to form tjie iqost material part of the case , and decided it ) did not arise , without aJt all entering iatp the mjerits of it . It naigbt surely have Veen ur ^ ejj that
this was the first time ot such a . question coming before . th £ Court ; that thifi was a foundation expressly for tie worship of God onJProtestaflt I } isseJitJ 8 g principles 5 andthat if it were inquired wbat thpse true principles are , the Court would net wonder that no form of doctrine was prescribed ; that it would appear , on inquiry , that the
foundations formed on tbos . e- principles § Xf uegsly recognJused tfce night of all bodies ana individuals to adopt and even form aucb . opinions as should seem to them most consonant to the Scripture ?; and therefore tfoaj , it would not be contrary to tfrei * intent * tbftt congregations shoiU . 4 go on iinprovijie * with the improvement of tfr . t rest of their
IsUqwcreatures \ and that they snou 14 no wore , be confined { or ever within the thea bounds of legality ^ tfcaj * tbo ^ e whicfc tUen existed of biblical criticise * an 4 inquiry . Surely it might have Wen tolcj the * J * o * id Chancellor , however strajt ^ e it wight sound , to the ears of the CouxL tfaat pro ^ e $ ta « t Dissenters , as ProtestaoA Bissent , er ^» k ^ ow
no forw of feith or opinion , w . bicli i » to st ^ nd s . till w&Ue the worW is ^ ojn ^ op , 9 JI& tlvat ijf a Bftaftte * - in ch ^ np . ^ ry vq& fi « v 4 it qu $ , he will ^ ccpinpAish an ar ^ uo . up , ta $ k . The ln ^^ er bein ^ ^ ti lji Dftrfeqtl ^ ojpe n Vy tjj ^ yeiierence to , the ^ a ^ tej ^ it w ta V hop ?* ti ^ t \ wfare hm tbe trw m&w w $ ifrp * 1
-
-
Citation
-
Monthly Repository (1806-1838) and Unitarian Chronicle (1832-1833), July 2, 1817, page 430, in the Nineteenth-Century Serials Edition (2008; 2018) ncse.ac.uk/periodicals/mruc/issues/vm2-ncseproduct2466/page/54/
-