date

25 Dec r 1814 Jug Util 12
25 Dec r 1814

Jug Util

12

II Sub Rev.

6

Heterodoxy is neither more nor less than the entertaining an opinion different from that of him whose opinion is taken for the standard. But as between A and B be they who they may which is he whose opinion is the proper standard? the standard to which the other ought to be made conformable. Between the opinion of A and the opinion of B there is by the supposition a certain distance. True but in which ever way measured this distance is it not the same? If between your opinion and mine there is a certain distance is it not as great from mine to yours as from yours to mine. True: but if either of us is the tyrant the legitimate tyrant of the whole human race, then and not otherwise, so it is that how true the opinion is the proper the universal standard, and on the part of every other person to entertain an opinion in any degree distant from it is an offence.

Ah! how little do they know—how far are they from so much as suspecting—that in these terms by which in those latter days the gravest imputation has been understood to be conveyed, not any the slightest imputation at all was originally contained. But little by little as disputes about things unintelligible grew fiercer and fiercer, that one of two opposite sets of disputants which had on its side the virtue of flesh, set up its own Jesus [...?] for the standard to the other, every <.^.^.> standard of rectitude from which every deviation <.^.^.> punished as an offence.

10.

Heterodoxy is the entertaining of opinions from his whose opinion is the standard. B's opinion is as far from A's as A's from B's. Only upon the supposition that A is the lawful tyrant of the human race, is B's opinion more of an offence than A's.

11.

Little do men know that which is and in so many minds the gravest of imputations was at first no imputation at all: nor would ever have been so but that one of two disputants got the power to make the other suffer.
Similar Items
  • Title: [25 Dec 1814 Jug Util 10]
    Description: 25 Dec 1814

    Jug Util

    10

    II. Sub Rev

    5

    Heresy Heterodoxy

    Heresy—heterodoxy heresy schism—In all these cases there does exist it is but too true a real matter of fact—and with it a real offence existing and made manifest. Manifest? but on whose part? On the part of the person, to whom and by these expressions, delinquency is imputed? No: but in the part of him by whom it is imputed: By heresy, in Greek [Greek text] ere it was first applied to the purpose of giving intimation of a species of delinquency nothing more was meant than the making of a choice, making a choice as between one opinion and another. Making a choice not between one opinion and another? (says the alledged delinquent accused with heresy) but in doing so where can be the offence? who is there that is not occupied—continually occupied in the making of such choices? who is there that for two minutes together unless by being asleep can avoid making it? who is there that can avoid making it and live?

    Oh, but says the accuser the opinion thus chosen is an opinion opposite different from mine. Here then is the proposition involved—continually and necessarily involved in every such charge. I was a person the differing from whom in opinion on any article and in particular in any article of religion, or in a word in any article whatever, in an offence. <.^.^.>by the two expressions one and the same amount to <.^.^.> is expressed. I am in intention a tyrant in so far as <.^.^.> myself a tyrant: and under my tyranny my <.^.^.> is that all mankind be prostrate. My wish and desire is to render miserable whatsoever person shall in any part presume to give expression to an opinion different from mine.

    7.

    2. Schism

    heterodoxy

    heresy: In all these instances an offence indeed has place: but the offender is not he to whom: but he by whom transgression is imputed. Heresy means making a choice—nothing more.

    8.

    Orthodox. The offence consists in making a wrong choice. i.e. a choice different from mine.

    9.

    Heterodox. This is as much as to say I am tyrant as much as I can be, and wish to subject to my

    tyranny all mankind—rendering miserable all who profess to think differently from me.
  • Title: [24 Dec r 1814 Jug. Util 13]
    Description: 24 Dec r 1814

    Jug. Util

    13

    II. Sub Rev

    7

    Heresy Heterodoxy

    The more absurd the opinion, the more the number of opponents which it would be liable to find and the warmer the opposition on the part of evil[?] it would be apt to find. But the hotter the opposition the warmer would be the resentment kindled by that opposition: and the hotter the resentment the sharper the suffering which in the name of punishment it would, in so far as it were in its power, inflict for the gratification of that passion: and thence it was that the more absurd the opinion the graver the imputation cast on him whose offence consisted in the not embracing it.

    12.

    The more absurd the opinion the graver is the offence imputed to him who refuted it. For, the more absurd the opinion the more and warmer the opponents: the warmer the opposition the warmer the resentment kindled by it: the warmer that resentment the greater the suffering which it would seek to inflict. To [...?] a [...?] for such infliction, the graver therefore the offence imputed.
  • Title: [25 Dec r 1814 Jug Util 14]
    Description: 25 Dec r 1814

    Jug Util

    14

    I. Sub Rev

    8

    Schism

    Schism—The state of things expressed by those words is still the same. Schism is neither more nor less than division. On any part of the field of religion, or on any other part of the field of thought and [...?], in so far as between any two or more persons any difference of opinion has place, division has place, and therefore schism has place. Between the opinion of A and the opinion of B separation division schism has place. They are separated by the amount of a certain distance. But here again comes the unanswerable question. If A be at a certain distance from B at how much greater or less distance is B from A..

    Oh but /B/ A is entrenched in power coercive power and it is /A/ B who has the misfortune to be subject to it. Thereupon A /B/ goes to work upon B and by power or bribery A does what he can towards inducing him to relinquish his opinion: that is to endeavour to cause it to be supposed that the opinion which he does hold is not really held by him or vice versa.

    No man ever in the character of an act of delinquency—of a matter of guilt—of a just subject or cause of condemnation or accusation ever imputed schism to any other, but in the desire of seeing tyranny employed in the production of mendacity or at the least of insincerity: in the desire of seeing employed if not in the intention of contributing to employ either opposing or corruptive (collective corruption) or in a word bribery in the subornation of a practice which is always <.^.^.> and which to a great extent under all laws <.^.^.> is a crime in the character of a criminal one.

    13.

    Schism is but division separation: separation by a certain distance. Question still the same—

    A being at a certain distance from A[B?], at how much greater or less distance is B from A.

    14.

    But A has power: B. none. Thereupon get A to work upon B and by force or bribery [...?] to engage B to receive some opinion he disbelieves, or reject some that he believes.

    15.

    By no man was schism ever imputed to another but in the desire of seeing tyranny, oppression or corruption employed in the production of mendacity or at least insincerity: collective corruption i.e. bribery always vitious and in many cases punished.