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
these grounds , which afford a civil question in this Court , the information contends thai it v * entitled to certain relief , and particularly to an injunction to prevent the present legal proceedings of the defendants .
The deeds upon which the questions in this case arise , are the deed of 1701 ( the particular effect of which it will he necessary to state carefully ) , another in 1742 , to carry on this part of the trust , and lastly , the deed of 1772 , hy which last the premises were conveyed to Mr . Maunder and others . Another part of this trust is an acre of land , given for the purposes
of the trust , and originally settled thereto in 1720 , which is in 1772 rested in Mr . Maunder and eleven others . It appears also , that there have been two sums of £ 200 each , given for the same purpose , which , with £ 99 , accumulations of rents , &c . of the other trust property , was laid out in the three per cents ., part of which stock has been sold and laid out in
leasehold property ( it does not appear in whom vested ) , and the residue was invested id a promissory note given to four of the trustees , which still remains so invested . A further sum of £ 100 has been- given by another person , which is for the benefit of the minister . In 1793 , a stable was purchased by the trustees , and in 1794 , a
school-room , &c . erected , but it is alleged by the answer , that previous to that time dissensions had arisen in the congregation , and that the plaintiffs did not subscribe to such erection . It appears also , that the dwelling-house on the trust has been usually , but not always , the residence of the minister , it having been sometimes let , and the rent appropriated for his benefit .
It becomes here necessary ( not for the purpose of expressing any opinion on doctrinal points , but in order to see what can be referred to as ascertaining the nature of this trust ) , to discover , if possible , the meaning of the original founders as to the purposes to which it was to be applied . Observing that the first trust deed is dated
in 1701 , it is important to remark that in 1689 the Act of the 1 st of William and Mary , commonly called the Toleration Act , was passed , which exempted certain persons coming under the description of Protestant Dissenters , from the penalties of certain laws therein mentioned ; and I observe again , the object seems to have been merely as stated in the title to exempt the
persons therein described " from the penalties of certain laws , " that is to « ay , certain particular statutes , therein mentioned and enumerated ; and it does not appear to have done , or to have been intended to have done , any more ^—leaving the common law exactly as it was with regard to any offences recognised by that common law against religion or the esta-
Untitled Article
blishment . And in that Act ' there is an express provision , that nothing in that Act contained shall extend to give any ease , benefit or advantage to any Papist , &c , or
" to any person that shall deny in his preaching or writing the doctrine of the blessed Trinity as it is declared in the aforesaid Articles of Religion } " this , I repeat , was enacted in 1689 , and the original creation of this trust was in 1701 .
Afterwards , in 9 and 10 William III . an Act passed ^ entitled " An Act for the more effectual suppressing of Blasphemy and Profane ness ' * and it recites , that whereas many persons have of late years openly avowed and maintained many blasphemous and impious opinions , contrary to the doctrines and principles of the Christian
religion , greatly tending to the dishonour of Almighty God , &c .:. wherefore , * ' for the more effectual suppressing of the said detestable crimes , it is ^ en acted , that if any person , &c . shall , by writing , teaching , &c . deny any one of the Persons in the Holy Trinity to be God , " or shall assert that there are more gods than One , or
deny the divine authority of the Scriptures , he shall suffer certain pains . You will observe the recital to be not that the opi ~ nions are contrary to those of the Church of England , but to the Christian religion , and then to repress such doctrrtes so
declared by the &ti £ ti' ££ to be contrary Jo the Christian religion ^ U is euaeted as in the Act mentioned . The information , however , was required by the Act to he given within a limited period , and an opportunity was given to the offender to renounce his error . There can he no
doubt that prior to this statute , blasphemy was an offence punishable at common law ; and it is impossible , as it appears to me , to contend that the preamble is not to- be taken as proof , that in the eye of the legislature these doctrines , against which it is directed , amounted to blasphemy . And nobody can contend that this statute by
any means affected the common law , but left it exactly in the same state as before . As the late Act which repealed this Act repealed also the Scotch law on the same subject , I have here one of those Acts ; it relates to and is directed against denying the doctrine of the Trinity expressly under the title of blasphemy ; and it enacts
that those who denied that doctrine should be punished with death - These Statutes remained in force till the $ 3 rd of the present King , when the Act passed which repealed the excepting clause in the Toleration Act , and % he 0 th and 10 th King
William , so far as relates to the doctrine of the Trinity , and also the Scotch laws ; and I should observe that , there . peemed to i > e no difference of opinion in any individuals of either House ; thaj , wi )) u > nt considering what offence there was at common
Untitled Article
43 8 Znitlligence \^ Proceedintfs in Chancery regarding Unitarians *
-
-
Citation
-
Monthly Repository (1806-1838) and Unitarian Chronicle (1832-1833), July 2, 1817, page 438, in the Nineteenth-Century Serials Edition (2008; 2018) ncse.ac.uk/periodicals/mruc/issues/vm2-ncseproduct2466/page/62/
-