Sidebilder
PDF
ePub

to legislate, was an attempt to break the law. They tried their own strength, and protested, before they came to your bar with a petition; and it is fair to infer, that they would never have petitioned at all, if they had succeeded in their attempt to set the legislature at defi

ance.

It should be observed, however, that the Unitarians are not responsible for the conduct of Fearon. I am not certain that he ever professed himself a member of their sect. He now calls himself a Free Thinking Christian, which is a round about name for an unbeliever. The present outcry againt the marriage act originated with this man.

But it comes before the House of Commons in a less questionable shape, introduced to their notice by a respectable Member, and preceded by petitions from every corner of the kingdom. To the former circumstance I am willing to attribute all the importance that it can claim. It is the only favourable feature which I can discover in the case, and any encouragement, which the Bill may unhappily receive, will be owing to its author rather than to its merits. The latter, I certainly consider, as of very little consequence. For since the day on which the secret of simultaneous petitioning was first discovered by the Dissenters, there is no question however trivial on which parchment is not put into requisition, and Parliament duly acquainted with the grievances of his Majesty's subjects. A bustling London secretary sends a circular to his friends in the country, and back comes the humble Petition and Prayer by return of post. Whether the measure in contemplation be great or small, a tithe bill or a turnpikebill, a school-bill or a marriage-bill, the popular voice is invariably declared with the same sincerity and dispatch.

But to come a little closer to the grievance and the remedy. The first is, that the words "in the name

of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost," occur twice in the course of the Marriage Service, and Unitarians, disbelieving the doctrine of the Trinity, scruple to hear or to repeat the sentence. Now the words, even by the confession, of Unitarians, are the words of Scrip

ture.

Their improved version of the New Testament admits the authenticity of the passage, and contents itself with saying Spirit instead of Ghost, that is, with substituting a modern term in the place of an old

one.

And what is still more to the purpose, these words, which were spoken by our Saviour when he com-, missioned his Apostles to baptize, are retained as a part of the Baptismal Service in Belsham's Unita, rian Prayer Book, and are used frequently, if not universally, by the members of his congregation. I must think, therefore, that the consciences for which we are now required to legislate, are not only tender but sore. Unitarians have their own method of explaining the words in question. They do not hesitate to use them in the solemn rite of Baptism; and it is difficult to understand why so much stress should be laid upon their recurrence in the Marriage-service. If in the latter they teach, imply, and assume the sublime and mysterious doctrine of a Trinity in Unity, as I conceive they certainly do, they must teach, imply, and assume the same in the Baptismal-service and in the Scripture-in neither of which have your Petitioners ever been able to discover them. I know that Messrs. Fearon and Dillon, and others of a similar disposition, call our ceremony blasphemy, and our altars idolatrous. And I also know that such decla. rations are punishable, and should be punished. For though the Trinity bill be repealed, yet are the Scriptures still protected; and these scurrilities are directed against the Bible as pointedly as against the Church. Fearon's case may possibly be considered peculiar; in

asmuch as he calls himself a freethinker and may say that he entertains no more respect for the Scripture than the bona fide Unitarian entertains for the Trinity. How then will you deal with petitioners of this description? Will you abrogate that maxim of the Common Law, which declares Christianity to be part and parcel of the law of England; and allow a man to plead infidelity as an exemption from your statutes? If not, where will you draw the line? The Unitarian rejects the express words of Revelation; or rather he uses them at the font, and is shocked to hear them at the altar. Is this a religious or a reasonable scruple? I submit very confidently that it is not. A Christian ought not to quarrel with the words of the Bible. They may be injudiciously selected or unnecessarily employed; but blasphemous they cannot be; and it is no grievance or hardship to be commanded to listen to them and repeat them, unless it be a grievance and a hardship to be considered and treated as a Christian.

Our marriage service is strictly a Scriptural service, and if, under such circumstances, the tenderness of the Unitarian conscience is to be received as a sufficient excuse for the rejection of the ceremony, it is evident that every other sect, and subdivision of religionists has a right to avail itself of the same plea. Even churchmen may be found, who object to parts of this and many other solemnities. And if they were to tell you that their consciences revolted at this or that particular prayer, that they could not sincerely pray for a family of children, or that they do not consider Rebeccah as an unexception. able pattern of conjugal fidelity, (seeing she deceived her husband upon a very important occasion) if these, or similar difficulties were made matters of conscience, what answer can you return, but that such consciences are erroneous and that the legislature is not bound to con

sult them? there would be a ready reply, and it would come at last to this:-that there should be no positive law upon this important subject, but that every couple should be linked together in matrimony, how, when, and where they pleased.

Το every other answer

But it will be said that a much simpler remedy has been devised by this Bill; and having shown the real nature of the grievance by which it has been produced, I will proceed to consider the mode of cure which it suggests.

In the first place then, we should remark the great difference which exists between the arguments and the enactments of the gentleman who has introduced this Bill. He dates his troubles from the 26th. of George II. contending that in the interval which elapsed between the passing of the Toleration-Act and the Marriage-Act, Unitarians might marry as seemed good in their own eyes. The obvious and very simple remedy to which such reasoning leads, would be to repeal so much of the Marriage-Act as relates to Dissenters from the Church, and to leave such persons as they were before their grievances commenced. If they are certain, as they pretend to be, that they could have solemnized lawful matrimony out of the Church before the Act of the 26th. of George II., why do not they petiion to be restored to that envied and advantageous situation? They admit that their forefathers did not remonstrate against the MarriageAct; which is a pretty plain proof that their forefathers were married in the Church. For if they had been accustomed to solemnize mar. riage in their meeting-houses, the alteration would never have been submitted to in silence. But the present generation have discovered that their forefathers were in the wrong; that they ought to have been, and might have been coupled together in their conventicles-and that it is the Marriage-Act and nothing but the Marriage-Act which

gives them so much trouble. If so, they should propose a general exemption from its enactments; and the present Bill is enough to satisfy us that they dare not trust their own arguments, or do not understand their own grievances.

In the second place, the proposal to omit certain passages in the Marriage Ceremony, although it is smoothed over in rounded periods as a slight innovation, is sufficient not merely to degrade, and disgrace, but to destroy the Church of England. Her Book of Common Prayer, her Rites and Ceremonies, and Articles, are her own, not yours. They were drawn up in her Convocations under the authority of her Bishops, and proceeded from spiritual, not from temporal authority. Parliament adopted them and gave them the support of the civil power; and of course the same Parliament might have rejected, or may now repeal them. But the object of the present Bill is to alter the rites of the Church, without giving her a voice on the occasion. There is no saying what Parliament, in its legislative omnipotence, may not do. But you will overset every precedent in existence, you will violate the spirit and principles of the constitution, if you pretend to turn this house into a synod or council, and waste your time in what you do not understand, the discussion and the formation of Creeds, and Rites, and Rubrics. The king, as head of the Church, may appoint commissioners to take the subject into consideration. The Convocation may re-assume its antient functions. But, until the Convocation has agreed to the proposed amendments, Parliamentary interference is tyranny and usurpation. The Church of England has been

The repeal of the Act of Uniformity

would not be so violent a measure as that

which has been introduced by Mr. Smith: as Churchmen would then be left at liberty to use their own forms. Mr. Smith proposes to forbid them.

REMEMBRANCER, No. 41.

reproached, by its various adversa. ries, with being an Act-of-Parliament Church. The Papist has done this in his zeal for the power of the Pope; and the Puritan in his affected attachment to the privileges of the people, has imitated the example. But up to this hour the imputation is scandalous and false. I trust you will not entertain a Bill by which the opprobious epithet would be justified and confirmed.

And if you do entertain it, consider the consequences of such a step. As I said before, with respect to the scruples of an ill-informed conscience, where will you stop? Have we not innumerable sub-divisions of fanaticism and folly, of vice and unbelief; and may we not be told by the advocates of each, that some little modification of a Rite, or a Ceremony, would remove their scruples and promote their welfare. Give a Clergyman your commands to omit all the Collects and all the Creeds, the Litanies and the Graces, the Prayers and the Praises of the Church, and our Socinians will be enabled to join regularly in the established worship, and be saved the expence of supporting teachers of their own. Let a Baptist have the privilege of walking into a Vestry, and saying,

Baptize my child, passing over all the ceremony except the entry in your register," and he will obtain the benefit of a more secure and public record of the birth and legitimacy of his offspring. In the same spirit you may go through every page of the Ritual; and alter or add, omit or modify, according to the infinite caprices of mankind. Till Jews, Turks, Heretics and Infidels, feel an equal delight in the dogmas, and take an equal share in the worship of your truly Catholic to alter the Prayer Book for one communion. If Parliament consents scruple, it ought to alter it for every scruple ;-and this Bill, which aspires to the character of a liberal measure, is an act of maimed and

Q ૧

imperfect justice, unworthy of the support of its friends, unworthy of the equity and impartiality of the House of Commons, upsetting ancient landmarks, irritating ancient and holy feelings, mixing profane and sacred in one undistinguishable mass, all for the purpose of giving a very little relief to a very little scruple of a very little portion of his majesty's subjects.

If the Unitarian Dissenters are desirous not of trampling upon the Church, but of marrying after their own fashion, and the House should be disposed to indulge them in this fancy, I have no objection to consider any plan which they may suggest. They have, I admit, one strong plea; viz. that similar indulgence has been already shewn to the Quaker and the Jew. Parliament was satisfied when it passed the Marriage Act, that clandestine marriages would not be encouraged by excepting these small and very peculiar bodies of people from the general operation of the law; and the boon which they earnestly sought was granted. Let the Dissenters come forward en masse, and petition for a similar exemption; and if they can shew that such a measure will not lead to the very inconvenience which the Marriage Act was designed to remove, they will have a fair claim to our attention. Do not deal with the question, as if it were to be determined by the pertinacity of its advocates; do not shew the greatest favour to those who evi. dently deserve the least; do not pretend to interfere with the Rites and Ceremonies of the Church. But call upon the Dissenters to accomodate their wishes to the spirit of your marriage laws; and then enquire whether those wishes are reasonable and can be complied with.

such publication be given by the minister, let the parties be married, on the strength of such certificate, by their own teacher, and let them bring a certificate of their marriage to the parish register. This would provide against clandestine marriages, and would give sufficient facility of recording and proving them. Dissenters would not complain of being deprived of the privilege of marrying by license; since licenses proceed from Episcopal authority, which they do not admit or respect. I am not aware of any material objection to this plan: of its infinite superiority to that which is now before the House, I cannot think that one individual will doubt. I throw it out for the consideration of those whom it more particularly concerns; confident that we should not be justified in granting more, and that the petitioners themselves cannot expect us to require less.

But at the same time, it is better, that things should remain as they are.

I need not recapitulate my arguments in order to shew the merits of this opinion; but the principle upon which it rests is incontrovertible. The present outcry against the Marriage Act arises from a groundless scruple. If that scruple is not attended to, it will gradually be forgotten, and the voice that issues from it will be heard no more. Experience is in favour of this view of the question. The very Rite now complained of by Unitarians, was once the bitter grievance of Presbyterian and Puritan. While some persons were intent upon beheading the king, and establishing the covenant, and some dealt in a smaller way-revolted against the surplice, protested against black puddings, and rejectThat I may not be accused of re-ed the Sign of the Cross, and clothes commending impossibilities, I will made of linsey-wolsey, show how the important objects just "Others were for abolishing alluded to may be reconciled. Let the Banns of marriage between Dissenters be published in their pa rish Church, let a certificate of

That tool of matrimony, a ring,
With which the unsanctifyed bridegroom
Is marry'd only to a thumb."
These follies have had their day;

the legislature stood firm; common sense came to its assistance; and the descendants of those very men who are described by our great satyrist, retain their peculiar views of the Christian dispensation, while their consciences are too seared to flinch at "Cross or king, or wedding ring." The substantial and important differences between Churchman and Dissenter, remain. But there was nothing on which the latter was once so scrupulous as forms, and he has now adopted, of his own accord, the very identical usages which he forsook the Church for imposing. It will be the same with a newer and not less dangerous sect., The next generation will perceive that conscience cannot call upon them to quarrel with the words of the Bible-and when they hear from those who are learned in the Journals of Parliament, that a Bill was introduced into the House of Commons, in 1822, for the purpose of compelling a Clergyman to curtail the rites of his Church, they will say that the Unitarians of such early times had more zeal than discretion, and strained at a gnat while they swal. lowed a camel.

PROPHECY OF THE DESTRUCTION OF PROTESTANTISM IN

1825.

CONSIDERABLE curiosity has been excited in this country, by hearing that the Roman Catholics of Ireland are in possession of a Commentary on the Apocalypse, which informs them that the Protestant Religion will terminate in the year 1825. The work alluded to is, "The General History of the Christian Church, from her Birth to her final triumphant State in Heaven, chiefly deduced from the Apocalypse of St. John the Apostle and Evangelist." The author was an Englishman, and his real name was

Walmsely; but he assumed the name of Pastorini; and it is under that title that the work is commonly known. He was a person of considerable scientific and literary attainments, obtained the degree of D.D. in the university of Paris, and was raised at an early age to the episcopal dignity. His History has been translated into French, German, and Latin. Extracts from it have been recently reprinted in Ireland, and are circulated and read with avidity. We subjoin a few of the more remarkable passages, prefixing such an account of the author's general system, as may serve to render them intelligible to our readers.

Pastorini thinks that the Apocalypse contains a division of the whole Christian æra to the end of time into seven ages, corresponding with the seven seals, seven trumpets, and seven vials. The removal of each seal discloses a part of the history of the Church. The trumpets announce events that are alarming to the Church; such as persecutions, convulsions, heresies. The vials convey the punishments which Christ inflicts upon the enemies of his people.

The fifth age of the Church is stated to be the age of the Reformation, and on the opening of the fifth seal, Apocal. vi. 9. St. John hears the complaints of the martyrs who were put to death by the Reformers. These martyrs are represented as having been very numerous in all Protestant countries.

The fifth trumpet, Apocal. ix. 1-11. describes the rise and progress of the Reformation: Luther is the opener of the bottomless pit; the locusts represents the Protestants, and Apollyon, their king, is the devil. The five months (in ver. 5,) or 150 days, are the first 150 years of the Reformation, duriug which the Catholics were persecuted severely, viz. from 1525 to 1675. The five months, in verse 10, are another period of 150 years, during

« ForrigeFortsett »