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
bishop concluded by saying , he was friendly tot the general principle of the Bill * and would readily vote for its going into a Committee , where the points in which , it was deficient could receive every atteution .
The Lord Chancellor said , that his strong regard for the interests of the Church must be his apology for presuming to differ very materially from the Rt . Rev . Prelate , He should , for the present , lay out of view the particular provisions of the Bill , and mate a few observations on its
general priuciple . And , first , it appeared to him extremely material to have all doubt removed as to the legal character in which this sect , appeared to ask their relief . The preamble stated , that certain persons scrupled the doctrine of the Trinity . He apprehended they meant to say that they were deniers of that doctrine . He hoped
their Lordships would do him the justice to believe that , when he was speaking of the law on this subject , he was referring only to the question how that law actu * ally stopd , and not entering into what it might be expedient or proper it should be . When he spoke of doctrines , too , he spoke onLy of doctrines as supported
by the Church , not entering into the speculative discussions which individuals might entertain , as to the grounds on which they anight be supposed to rest . That Church , and the doctrines it professed , it was his duty to support ; to that Church he belonged , and he trusted he should be always found to maintain it to the best of his abilitv . Then on this
Bill the first question was , whether it was not necessary that the first step they took should be some declaration , whether the denial of the doctrine of the Trinity be or he not legal at common law . On this subject he could not help saying great misapprehension had prevailed as to the supposed effect of the late Act . The Toleration Act expressly excluded from its benefit deniers of the doctrine of the
1 runty . And then came the 9 and 10 of William and Mary , the repeal of which had been extremely misunderstood , when it was supposed that the repeal of the Act made that legal which was not so before . He meant , that that AcJ had not altered the common law , whatever it
was . He was not saying what that common law was ; he was ouly contending that the doubt which existed ought to be removed . The Act of William and Mary did not create the offence , it only prescribed a new punishment . In his view it declared what was then conceived to be an oflfence before ; but it gave a punishment which no man living could wish should continue , and . which they therefore , repealed ; but no cue , he was sure ,
Untitled Article
had the least idea of affecting the com * mon lajw by such repeal . He was not entering ou the question what that common law was * or whether it ought to be so or not ; he only said , that before the Bill proceeded , it ought to be determined
how it stood . The great objection be made to the Bill was , that it recognized a system as different from the system of Christianity of the Church as light from darkness . Nothing could be wore op * posed to each other than the Church and these Unitarians . He did not there enter
into the question which was right in doc * trine and which was wrong ; but they ought to understand on what footing they were to stand , and to what extent they were to go . They had already excepted Jews and Quakers , and if they were to listen to these religious scruples , where
was this to stop ? Could they say to anyone , to the Catholics for instance , that theirs were not religious scruples ? If these parties , who of all the Dissenters were diametrically opposed to the most essential doctrines of the Church , were , because they came there to avow their
denial of such doctrines , ( and ,, by the bye , they never thought of these scruples till the Acts against them had been repealed , ) to have relief , why not separate them entirely , as they had done the Jews aud Quakers ? Why was the Church to be the handmaid to the scruples of these
parties £ Was a man to come to the Bishop and say , I deny your doctrines , therefore give me your licence to do so ; and to go to the minister and say , 1 deny your doctrines , give me your certificate of my banns , and for the same denial register my marriage ? Was he to go to those
persons who reverence these doctrines and avow the denial , for which it is not clear he may not be punishable at common law ; and are they to be bound and compelled , under pains and penalties , to be aiding and abetting to this his dissent ? Was not this to make the Church the
handmaid to her own disgrace ;—to make her the servant , for civil purposes , of those who deny her first and most essential doctrines ? By the repeal of the statute of William and JVlary , awd of the excepting clause in the Toleration Act , they had given the benefit of that Act to these persons . But what had it given ? It was doubtful to hhn whether it did
more than repeal the particular punishment to an offence which the Legislature conceived to be punishable before , aud so exempt these parties from particular penalties . Did that go to alter the common law ? . God forbid he should take on
himself-to decide what the common law was ; all he contended for was , that whatever it \ Vas before 9 and 10 William
Untitled Article
Jiiiettigence ^ ParUatneiitary ; Unitarians * Marriage Bill . | M 3
-
-
Citation
-
Monthly Repository (1806-1838) and Unitarian Chronicle (1832-1833), April 2, 1824, page 243, in the Nineteenth-Century Serials Edition (2008; 2018) ncse.ac.uk/periodicals/mruc/issues/vm2-ncseproduct2523/page/51/
-