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
of Protestatit Dissent will be explained , and tTie case will Chen come again before the Court on lm report , to be fairly argued on its merits . The Unitarians should by no means let a case of this sort be established as a precedent against them ; and perhaps the safest way would be to undertake the defence of it as a body . I believe it will
be found , that by far the greater part of the foundations made at the time the present institution was formed , were Upon these enlarged principles with regard to doctrine ; some institutions certainly provided against the trust being * applied to any of the other
rival systems of church government , ( the three only divisions on that head being Presbyterian , Independent , and Baptist , ) but very few made any stipulation as to doctrine , and those which did so expressed it clearly and distinctly .
Surely if the nature and principles of Protestant Dissent were once fully explained and recognised , it would be very clear that the congregation are as perfectly at liberty to embrace Unitarianistn as any other opinion . We have a right te assume in a Court of Justice , that till the 53 rd of the King * , there were no such persons as
Unitarians , ( it being a crime by law , and no conviction having taken place , till which every person must be considered innocent , ) but in 1817 , Unitarianism having ceased to become illegal * may be as lawfully and as cohsoiiatitly with the intent of the founder , embraced as any other opinion , unless it is maintained Aat no opinions but such as were held and known at the
time when the trust deeds were executed , can be adopted by a congregation . Suppose this deed . could by fair inference be * hewn to recognise on the face of it , the authenticity of the passage in 1 John , v . 7 , and consequently to imply that the founder must have contemplated that the belief in such authenticity must always form pavt of
the faith of the congregation , and as su < ch , he inculcated by the minister , ( nothing having at that tin > e appeared satisfactorily to impugn its genuineness , ) can it be conteatlecl that , wfien by the progress of criticism , the discovery of MBS » , &c ., the passive has beea proved beyond all doubt , by the confession of all , spurious , such tiew
opinion cannot be adopted by the congregation , because it may be demonstrated to be repugnant to the opinion and intent of the rounder . Other instancies mi g ht be pointed out , of entirely . new opinions naving arise n on very important subjects ; and wfien once the principles of Protestant Dissent are
ft&tabliehed } it can no more be contended that the congregation cannot ado ^ pt An opinion which , though illegal at the foundation , has ceased to be so since , than that no opinion can be -embraced by a congregatitti which v / aa not thcto in vogue .
Untitled Article
2 nd . There seems to be no Aotibt , afecdrding to this decision , that insritmkms { if tfaere are any ) founded for tTnitarianistiO , prioT to the repeal of the Trinity laws , are illegal and void , as in the Jewish casfc alluded to by Sir S . Rotnilly ; perhaps nothing can be done to secure these foundations except by the interference t ) f the legislature , but the next point must probably t > fe first determined .
3 rd . It is gravely argued , and argued by Sir S . Rotnilly , ( upon what grounds he did not think proper to state ) that impugning the doctrine of the Trinity , Was an offence at Common law originally , and has continued sro after the repeal of the acts , and therefore that any institution foriried since the repeal , for supporting Unitarianism , would be illegal .
This point shews the extreme importance of the decision in Mr . Wright ' s case . That gentleman has been heW to bail , and an . attempt will be made to get an indictment found against him by the Grand Jury of Lancashire , at the ensuirrg assizes . It is to be hoped ( in order that the question way be decided ) that they will find the bill ,
and in that case he will probably be tried at the spring assizes ^ and the Court of King ' s Bench must decide the point . I mention this , becatise Mr . Wright ' s case seems hitherto to have been ctrtistdered by Unitarians as not very important to them , and the Unitarian Fitnd in particular has declined interfering , * on being advised that
the question , whether impugning the doctrine of the Trinity was an offence at common law , was idle and impossible to be srerioTisly agitated ; which advice it rs still more singnlar to say , was given them by trrre gentleman who conducts the case reported below , on the part of the plaintiffs ,
in which bis counsel vehemently argfle the point , at \ d contend that it is so clear , that me Chancellor ought to dismiss the trustees , and take away the endowment of a congregation t > n the strength * of it , citing in
support of their argument the prosecution against Mr . Wright , which the Unitarians are advised they need not defend . If this point should be decided against tire Unitarians , \ it appears to be absolutely necessary to apply to Parliament for a
Tolera-* The Committee of the Unitarian Fund volunteered their aid to Mr . Wright in an early stage of tile proceedings $ their " declining to interfere , " we believe , respected primarily the question of the legality of the Meeting-house in wnich Mr . W . officiated , —7
at least , respected the blasphemy case 6 ftly so far as it appeared to be a mere question of the veracity of witnesses on the alleged point ofthe denial of a future state . £ r > . f v The prosecution of Mr . Wright for blasphemy is nbandontd , Eft .
Untitled Article
Intdligen& . ^ ProeeedinffS in Ch&noery regarding UMueri&ns . 43 *
-
-
Citation
-
Monthly Repository (1806-1838) and Unitarian Chronicle (1832-1833), July 2, 1817, page 431, in the Nineteenth-Century Serials Edition (2008; 2018) ncse.ac.uk/periodicals/mruc/issues/vm2-ncseproduct2466/page/55/
-