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

    found ( notwithstanding the vague limits which were placed by this statute ) , to be by do means a dead letter . In the 17 Elizabeth , two Anabaptists , and , in the 9 James I . two impugners of the doctrine of the Trinity y suffered under the writ de hseretico

    comtaurendo . It may be proper to notice two cases which occurred at this period , and which appear to have been attempts to establish in effect a sort of

    temporal jurisdiction over heresy , by considering the maintenance of heretical opinions , under the light of a breach of the peace 3 they can hardly be considered , however , as

    establishing any principle , particularly under the circumstances of the cases and tbe time of their occurrence . The one was before the Star-chamber , and the other seems to have been much doubted , and to have had the opiniou

    of the court and > even the Attorney General against it , and in both , the courts took special care to decide upon the principle of the seditious ^ nd inflammatory tendency towards a breach of the peace , of which , of course , a jury would always be the judge .

    The first is Atwood ' case , 15 Jas . I . Cro . Jac . 421 . It was error brought by him to reverse a judgment s upon an indictment before Justices of the Peace , for scandalous words : •* That the religion now professed was a new religion , preaching was but prattling , "

    &c . The error assigned was , that the offence was- not inquirable bt / indi& ~ ment 9 and before Justices of the Peace , but only before the High Commissioners . It was referred to tbe Attorney General to inquire if the offence was

    inquirable there , and he certified that it was not , and of that opinion , it is sai < J , was the court , but they would inquire . From £ Roll . 78 , it appears , however , that , by some means , the opinion of the court altered * and considered the words as scandalous and

    indictable , not , however , for their religious tendency , but as a breach of thejpeace-The other case was Traske ' s case , ( JHob . 236 , ) in the Star-chamber , for

    maintaining Judaisaing opinions , " being called ore ternis , ; he was sentenced to fine and imprisonment , not for holding those opinions , ( for those were eawnwnable in the Ecclesiastical Courts , notJiere , j ) -but for making -Qf conven-

    Untitled Article

    ticles and factions , by that means which may tend to sedition and commotion , and for scandalizing the King , the Bishops , " &c .

    The next important change in the law of heresy was made by the 29 Gar . II . c . 9 , by which the writ de haeretico comburendo , was abolished , and the offence was subjected only to ecclesiastical censures , pro salute animae , and all harassing with temporal penalties was put an end to . Such censures , however , were not to be

    regarded as a trifling punishment upon the offender if put in full force , and toleration of diversity of opinion was still very incomplete . The stat . of 1 William and Mary , c . i 8 , made for the purpose of giving " some ease to scrupulous consciences , "

    effected very little difference in the condition of persons who wished to think for themselves in religious matters . Freedom of opinion and the right of private judgment , seem to have been as little understood , or rather as much deprecated by

    Dissenters as Churchmen ; and , accordingly , the Toleration Act did little more than enable good Churchmen , in point of doctrine , to dissent from the government and ordinances of the church , and required a subscription to all the doctrinal articles of its faith *

    expressly providing , that persons Who impugned the doctrine of the Trinity should not be considered a& taking any relief under it . It , however , provided , that as far as it permitted diversity of faith and worship , the ecclesiastical courts should not interfere

    with any prosecutions . The exception of impu . gners of the Trinity from the benefits of this toleration , and the censure /* of the ecclesiastical courts to which they were left exposed , were still not considered sufficient to repress this heresy , " very

    prevalent , " as Blackstone says , *« in modern times $ " and the stat . of the 9 and 10 \ Villiam III . c . 32 , was passed , which once more revived the temporal jurisdiction over this species of heresy , and imposed very heavy

    penalties against all itnpugners of the doctrine of tbe Holy Trinity , who were made indictable under it , in the King ' s Courts ; which seem , in th } ls instance , as observed by Blackstone , in the case of 9 , Hen . V . c . 7 , to have gained not an exclusive but a concur *

    Untitled Article

    On Religious Offences indictable id Common Law . 5 SQ

• Citation
  • Monthly Repository (1806-1838) and Unitarian Chronicle (1832-1833), Sept. 2, 1817, page 539, in the Nineteenth-Century Serials Edition (2008; 2018) ncse.ac.uk/periodicals/mruc/issues/vm2-ncseproduct2468/page/27/