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

    epithet , or any otjier epith e t of offence cognizable at common law , to tjie impugning of the doctrine of the Trinity . It recites , thai maiiy persons lia ^ of late niamtain ^ ed many Ijiaspfaemous and impious opinions ,

    contrary to the doctrines and principles of the Christian religion , greatly tending to tfie dishonour of God , § cc ; and for the more effectually suppressing such detestable crimes , the impugning

    ± ) ie doctrine of the Trinity , the maintaining" that there are more Gods than one , and the den vino- of the divine authority of the Scriptures by Christians , are prohibited under certain penalties .

    But in . the second place , if it is clear that this offence is pronounced bjasptiemy by the act , it would onjy lead to ah inquiry , what is blasphemy at common law , and whether all jblasphemies are cognizable by it . Now

    it seems quite clear that heresy and blasphemy are nearly synonimous terms' in the ecclesiastical courts , though it is admitted op all hands that heresies are not cognizable at common lavy . Without attempting jo define the legal import of the word

    blasphemy , wrijch is comparatively new in ttie common law courts , and does pot appear to h ^ ve in ilself any very p ^ eci § e or determinate signification , it is sufficient to observe , that it

    is perfectly evident from all the authorities on the subject , that only such blasphemies come within the principle Jaid c | own for the jurisdiction of t ^ ie te mporal courts as affect the powe ^ isincl moral attributes of God-, by denying his being and providence , or ^ he revelation of his will to man , so as to impair our reverence of him , and wea&eh the bond of moral

    obligation . If then the legislature has only done here as it' has done feefore , ' in repealed instances , viz . inflicted a temporal punishment ; for the more effectually 7

    suppressing * a heresy or blasphemy in the spiritual coiirt ; s , such enactment would , furbisfy no argument in favpur of the prior jurisdiction of the temporal court over tjhe offence \ but the necessity of such an enactnpen , t \ yx > u 1 q ,

    oh tff ' e contrary , be rather an argument tfye other way , ajs it vyouljd not ; ijave been r ^ ii i redj if flje tempo ra l counts , could pimisn without it . If again it should be 99 11 tende < J that Ujis statute ^ gt "W cpn ^ de ^ a ^ a ,

    Untitled Article

    declaration 0 / the Je ^ gislaij ^ re that fhpsp opinions are ' hostile to tfye Christian religion in general , auxl therefore , vvithin the scope of temporal jurisdiction , it is to J ? e qb > servecj , ^ hat to put this construction upon such an

    act after its repe&l , woujd be contrary to the principles by which our law has viewed other penal laws on reli gious subjects , which , when prohibiting opinions which it was thought at

    the time expedient to suppress , have never been nice in applying epithetg which no one has even thought declaratory of the law on the subject when the enactment is repealed , to \ yhjeh the denomination of the offence meant

    to be suppressed is merely ancillary . It surely can never be seriously contended that the old penal laws , yyhich are to Ipe found on bur statute book , declaring- all sorts of opinions in ^ heir turns irripious , heretical , ^ lasphen ^ ou § feloniqus , &c ., are declaration ^ of their

    * * ' , w ' w " — — — ^ ^^ — r ™^ ^^ , ^*^ ^ — cripnnality in those respects , after the penalties have been long ago swept away . It is quite clear ( though jn the case of many of these statuses the legisiajurq has not gpne so ^ r , as it has

    in our case , to repeal buf cqere ^ y tp suspend the penalty ) yet that the ^ cts of toleration are considered as rpajiing the worship , which had been ; prohibited by the old statutes , innocent and lawful . at

    Who ^ reads ^ prd IVTii ^ sfields and Mr . Justice Foster ' s speeches oji Evans ' s case , or appeals to com in on sense , can for a moment cqneeive ^ hat when Unitarians are protected hy the acts in wor ^

    to ^ eiration ; t ^ xeir ip , w ^ en the ecclesiasticajc ^ urts ar ^ p ^ pjjjibited from prosecuting and the pewal enactmeuts against theoi ^ s r ^ peaje ^ , such enactniejuit is tjo lj » e cousiqered as , authorizing the tjemporai courts t

    on us a punishnieBt heavier tjban the e ^ pr ^ ss enactment imposed ? The l ^ iverpool prpse . c if ^ ipn a ^ ain ^ t Mr Wright \^ e see is , ai > a ) u 4 ou / e < f ; a » d when so Wfch ^ eal vyas . manifested i ^ thej first proceeding , it is . not lively so

    that aftej' the parties lia <^ cowmi ^ d themsel ves thiey wp ^ l 4 have % ist ^ 1 / *" th y ha ^ i tfi ^ 1 } a ^ dvi ^ ed th , ajt an indictment wou | 4 n , ot He , It ° flk ^ WffffJ ! # s ¥ to , ^ fe ^( w 9 f ds 011 the P l « pt , anc < ii ^ e ^ % Qn ) % ca J ^ e W ^ \ thj * mf $ fy } n b ^ fem , frlM

    Untitled Article

    5 . ^ 6 Religious Qff < evices indictable at Common L&w . i

• Citation
  • Monthly Repository (1806-1838) and Unitarian Chronicle (1832-1833), Sept. 2, 1817, page 546, in the Nineteenth-Century Serials Edition (2008; 2018) ncse.ac.uk/periodicals/mruc/issues/vm2-ncseproduct2468/page/34/