Site icon swarb.co.uk

Dominus Rex v Woolston: 1732

The defendant having publish’d several discourses on the miracles of Christ, in which he maintain’d that the same are not to be taken in a literal sense, but that the whole relation of the life and miracles of our Lord Christ in the New Testament, is but an allegory, several informations were brought against him, in which it was laid, that the defendant published those discourses, with an intent to vilify and subvert the Christian religion ; and he being found guilty, Mr. Worley mov’d in arrest of judgment that those discouses did not amount to a libel upon Christianity, since the Scriptures are not deny’d, but oonstrued and taken in a different meaning from that they are usually understood in ; and by the same reason that making such a construction should be punishable by the common law, so it would have been punishable by the cornmon law, before the Reformation, to have taken the doctrine of transubstantiattion allegorically ; now as the common law has continued the same since the Reformstion that it was before, whatever was punishable by it before, continues so likewise since the Reformation ; so that this being not now a crime by the common law, nor was it before the Reformation, when it was held literally a part of Christianity ; neither is the allegory made by the defendant, by the same reason, a crime puniishable by the common law ; so that if this be a crime, it must be of ecclesiastical conusance ; and it may be of a very dangerous tendency to encourage prosecutions of this nature in the Temporal Courts, since it may give occasion to the carrying on of proseccutions for a rnere difference in opinion, which is tolerated by law. He urg’d, that the defendant ehould have been proceeded against upon the stat. 10 W, 3, cap. 32, by which, for denying Christianity, the first offence incapacitates the offender to hold any offiice, and c.
so that this Act having chalk’d out a special method of punishment, and being made
for the benefit of the subject, the defendant should be proceeded against according to its direction ; then he offer’d, that though it should be admitted, the discourses
did amount to a libel upon Christianity, yet the common law has not cognisance of suob an offence : but it being opposed, that this should now be made a question, it having been settled in Taylor’s Case 1 Vent. 293, and in other instances ’twas answer’d by Raymond Chief Justice : ~hL~~st~a~iity in general is parcel of the common law of
En land, and therefore to be protected by it ; now whatever strikes at the very root
the opin~on of my Lord Hale in Tmjlor’s andse: E663 so that to say, an attem~to
subvert the est~b~~~d religiou is not ~utiishab~e by those laws upon which it is
~~blish’d, is an absurdity j if this were an etitirely new case, X shouid not think
it a proper question to be made: I would have it taken rrotice of, that we do not
meddle with any differences in opinion, and that we interpose otrly where the very
root of ~h~stianity it seif is struck at, as it plainly is by this allegorical scheme,
the Kew Testament, and the whole relatiori of the life and miracles of Christ
being denied; and who can find this alIeg~r~.
As to the 9 8 10 W. 3, tis’ true, where a statute introduces a new law and ~1i3icts
a new punj~h~ent, it must be followed ; but where an Act of ParIiame~~t only inflicts
a new ~unish~ent for an off~~~ce at common law, it re~ains an o~et~ce still pu~~~shable
aa it wag before the Act; so ’tis in a case of forgery, which notw~~~stand~I~g the
5 Eliz, remains still pun~shab~e, asit was before that statute ; and with him agreed
the whole Court.
of 8 hristianity, tends ~anifestly to a dissolution of the civil goveriiment, and so was
13, EASTWICK ANT, CORE. Process sued out in the vacation. Vid. 1 Baund. 299.

Judges:

Raymond CJ

Citations:

[1732] EngR 87, (1732) Fitzg 64, (1732) 94 ER 655 (B)

Links:

Commonlii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

ApprovedTaylor’s Case 1676
(Year?) An iriformatiori exhibited against him in the Crown Offce, for uttering of dlvers blasphemous expressions, horrible to hear, (viz.) that Jesus Christ was a bastard, a whoremaster, religion was a cheat ; and that he neither feared God, the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Crime, Ecclesiastical

Updated: 11 May 2022; Ref: scu.387202

Exit mobile version