From the Utica (N. Y.) Morning "IIerald" of Oct. 23.

THEOLOGY IN COURT. INTERESTING CASE.

REV. LEICESTER AMBROSE SAWYER versus THE CHRISTIAN INTELLIGENCER. At the Circuit Court still in session in this city, the case of Leicester Ambrose Sawyer versus Charles van Wyck was called on yesterday morning. The plaintiff is the well-known author of a new translation of the New Testament, and other scriptural translations and theological works of doubtful orthodoxy. The defendant is the publisher of the "Christian Intelligencer," a New-York paper devoted to the interests of the Reform Protestant Dutch denomination. The plaintiff charges the defendant with publishing in his paper libellous words, in a notice of his book entitled "Reconstruction of Biblical Theories, or Biblical Science Improved," and claims damages amounting to $10,000. The counsel appearing for the plaintiff was Le Grand Marvin of Buffalo; for the defendant, Henry A. Foster of Rome, and William H. Waring of New York. Several of the leading clergymen of the city had been summoned as witnesses, and were present during the day. The alleged libellous notice in question called the contents of the book "balderdash" and "twaddle;" and had the following sentence, on which the prosecution was chiefly based:

"On looking over it (the book), we first supposed it to have been written by a lunatic; but recollecting that its author was first a renegade Unitarian from Congregationalism, and then a renegade infidel from Unitarianism, we suspected the existence of a method in his madness."

Mr. Sawyer was the first witness called, and was questioned as to his books, especially his book on the "Reconstruction of Bible Theories," its circulation, his contract with its publishers, &c.; also as to his past and present religious and denominational associations. In the course of the cross-examination, Mr. Foster proposed to show that Mr. Sawyer was a "renegade infidel." Judge Morgan inquired what an infidel was; and Mr. Foster replied, that he was a person who did not believe in the authenticity of the Scriptures. The judge thought the term

indefinite. Every man in this free country has a right to his opinions on the subject, and opinions were various. The jury were the proper persons to decide in the case as to the meaning of the terms. He would therefore allow evidence to show what Mr. Sawyer's sentiments were, but not evidence to show that he was a "renegade infidel.”

He

Thus the court plunged recklessly and very incautiously into a sea of theological investigation. Mr. Sawyer wanted nothing better. He proceeded to deliver to the court, the reverend editors and witnesses, and the assembled company, such a lecture on theology as they seldom or never before had an opportunity of hearing. used his privilege. He told them what he thought about Moses and the Pentateuch, about inspiration, &c., &c.; and threw, no doubt, considerable light into the minds of the critics and their witnesses. Mr. Le Grand Marvin, his counsel, wished him to have an opportunity of reading to the court a little Hebrew, Syriac, and Egyptian; but here the court backed out, and resolutely refused to hear a word of it. "Give us your opinions," said the judges, "but spare us your authorities."

Then came the defence, and said they would prove that Mr. Sawyer was an infidel, renegade, &c.; and called all sorts of D.D's., missionaries, and tract-society men, to prove it. Then they helped Mr. Sawyer by reading a quantity of passages from his book. Then they subsided.

But Mr. Marvin, full of zeal for his client, would not let the matter rest so. "You have read a part," said he. "That is not fair. A part taken from its context gives no just idea of the book. Let us read the whole: that is the only way." The patient judge, like Issachar between two burdens, assented; and so they began to read the book.

The rest of the case we give in the words of the reporter:

The opposing counsel did not object, and the judge told him to proceed; and so he commenced with the preface, and table of contents, amid the laughter of the bar and other listeners. Mr. Marvin and Mr. Sawyer took turns, and continued the reading for about an hour. This was tedious, and all parties repented the turn things had taken. At length the judge ruled, that the entire contents of the book might be received in evidence without further reading; and the business ceased by mutual consent.

Mr. Foster summed up for the defence in a speech of an hour and a half, criticising the author and his work severely on evangelical grounds, in justification of the terms that had been applied to him by the plaintiff.

Mr. Marvin followed for the plaintiff in a plea somewhat longer, and went pretty deeply into the theological and philological merits of the questions that had been raised, and Mr. Sawyer's book. His veneration for received authorities and evangelical doctrines was manifestly small; and it was also apparent, that he had a profound regard for his client and his client's opinions. Mr. Sawyer must have selected his counsel with reference to his religious views as well as his legal ability.

The case was ready for the judge's charge about half-past nine o'clock in the evening. He distinguished between actions for libel and slander. Slander was oral: libel was written slander. To hold a person up in writing to unjust ridicule and suspicion was libellous. It had appeared from the evidence, that Mr. Sawyer was formerly a Congregational clergyman, and had withdrawn from the Oneida Congregational Association on account of peculiar theological views, and established himself as an independent Congregationalist. He did not now belong to any Orthodox denomination. He had written several works; among them the work which had occasioned the alleged libellous article. The law allows fair editorial criticism; and sometimes men are very lenient, and allow the critics wide latitude of expression yet one has no right to hold another up to unjust ridicule. No attempt was made to blacken the plaintiff's character,—the defence had not assailed his moral character; and, as far as the article in question refers to his moral character, it does not

seem to be fully justifiable, unless the fact that his views are not in accordance with received tenets reflects upon his character. The word “infidel” has no technical or legal signification in this country: in England it had, because England had an established church. The simple fact of calling the plaintiff an infidel is not libel. If there is a libel, it consists in holding the plaintiff up to unjust and malicious ridicule or opprobrium; yet, in this respect, editors should have some latitude. In a case like this, the opprobrious terms should be deducible from the character of the work noticed; and it was for the jury to say whether they were or not. Those who criticise an author should not abuse him unnecessarily. The amount of damages in the case is left wholly to the discretion of the jury, and will depend upon the motives which they attribute to the defendant. If the article in question was libellous, it was rather in calling the plaintiff a “renegade” and a “lunatic” than in calling him an "infidel” and his book "twaddle."

The jury, it seems, did not agree; and a new trial was ordered. When it comes off, we hope to hear about it.

We are glad that Mr. Sawyer has taken this question into court. It is time to know whether "religious" editors are, or are not, to be held to the same responsibility as other editors. Let them abuse and criticise books as they please and can, say we; but we do not believe they have any right to apply disgraceful and injurious epithets to men. To call a clergyman, who professes to be a Christian, an infidel, is to injure him in his society and his work. No man, who claims to be a Christian, ought to be called an infidel or Deist; and, if there is not conscience enough among Christian editors to enable them to see this, we hope the courts will hold them to it. We do not speak on our own acour epidermis is pretty tough; but we think it only just to others that this rule should be enforced.

count, for we believe

549

UNITARIAN AND EPISCOPALIAN TENDENCIES IN

GREAT BRITAIN.

ONE object, apparently, of the "Church Monthly," edited by Rev. F. D. Huntington and Rev. G. M. Randall, is to gather a few of the timid and ignorant Unitarians into the Episcopal fold by making them believe that they will be safer there from heresy, infidelity, and deism. Accordingly, we find a short article in the October number of this periodical, called "Unitarian Tendencies in Great Britain." The purpose of the article is to show that there is "a steady drift of opinions," "on both sides of the Atlantic," toward some great heresy. The article asserts that "the early Unitarians - Buckminster, Worcester, Channing, Whitman, the Wares, Greenwood, Thacher, and Norton would have revolted at the notions which are now broached in Unitarian journals, pulpits, and annual conventions." "Erroneous and one-sided," the writer continues, "in their doctrinal interpretations, they yet never thought of forsaking the authority of the Bible, discrediting the sacraments, or denying the Christian miracles. Grief and alarm would have filled their souls, had they foreseen the rationalistic results of their movement in the present utter rejection of the supernatural and sacramental elements of our religion, the contempt of biblical inspiration, and the indiscriminate fellowship with all forms and shades of neology that are willing to come under the Unitarian title, on the part of many of the younger clergy. Representatives of the former devout generation still remain, like Dr. Montgomery in Great Britain, and Dr. Gannett, Dr. Peabody, and a few others, here; but they only maintain a melancholy and ineffectual struggle against