protests of this nature? Or where is the acceptance of them enjoined as part of their duty?' The question is invidious to the clergy, and can only be raised upon the presumption of their being the passive instruments of arbitrary power; or, hirelings caring not for the flock. For if the clergy of the church of England be, as they profess to be, the servants of Christ;-if they hold, as they profess to hold, religion to be a sacred affair between man and his Maker;-if they honour, as they profess to honour, the principles of the Reformation which overthrew the dominion of law over conscience; then by the meekness and gentleness of Christ—by all that is sacred in religion by whatever was great and glorious in the example of our reformers -are they bound to receive every declaration by which conscience shall assert its rights, and religion maintain its consistency.

"It is said that 'It would be quite as rational in the clergyman to give the couple a protest on account of their faith, as for them to give him one on account of a rite contained in the Bock of Common Prayer. Perhaps it would only it should seem the clergyman is more willing to commit his conscience to the keeping of the state, than the Freethinking Christian is disposed to do; otherwise, indeed, there seems no reason why the clergyman should not protest to the dissenter against being considered a willing party to so indecent a mockery of religion, as the performance of a solemn cere mony to those who have openly and beforehand repudiated its sanctions, denounced its minister, and denied its doctrines!

"Such protests on the part of the clergy, if accompanied by petitions to the legislature, would tend speedily to relieve themselves from a painful duty, and dissenters from a degrading submission. At present, however, the clergy have neither protested nor petitioned; but they have, by an overwhelming opposition, during the last session of parliament, defeated that measure of relief by which it was proposed to make the church respectable and the dissenters free. "It is part of the case of the dissenters that the evil originated with, and is now upheld by THE CHURCH. A corrupt pontiff, misnamed Innocent, (the third) first rendered marriage in the church compulsory, and raised it to the rank of a sacrament. The reformed church, through the terrors of the ecclesiastical courts, continues to assert the exclusive claim of solemnizing marriage. This claim was, for the first time, sanctioned by an act of parliament, in 1753. By the progress of opinion the law has become oppressive to dissenters; they have petitioned the legislature for relief, and the clergy have opposed their prayer. When, therefore, the dissenter protests to the clergy of a wrong, it is not without a sense that they have a corrupt interest in that wrong—that they are the cause of its continuance by being the obstacle to its removal.

"The church it is true has become tolerant; but when the dissenter calls to mind the enlightened declaration made by the prime minister of the crown, during the debate on the bill for giving relief to dissenters in this particular, that The argument for the principle of the bill was unanswerable, as long as Jews and Quakers were exempted from submission to the marriage service,'- -can he forget his lordship's too prompt and devout assurance to the reverend bench, that he was as the same time unwilling to do any thing which should not receive the approbation of the CHURCH. To this statement then, that the clergy pledge themselves, and are solemnly bound at their ordination to comply with the liturgy of the church of England,' it should be added-but they have the power to obtain an alteration of the law, so as to dispense with this obligation with respect to the marriage of dissenters; and they will neither do so themselves, nor suffer others to do so.

"It manifests also little acquaintance with this subject to assert, that 'It is not optional with them (the clergy) to use or to omit, a part of any of the church ceremonies;' for it really is optional with them to do so. And it is

4

remarkable that the bishop of Worcester should, in the debate above noticed, have defended the principle of the bill which was designed to relieve the dissenter by omitting certain portions of the marriage service, by contending that it was only proposed to do that by law, which was already to a certain extent done in practice; for, said his lordship, 'Does not every body know that in large and populous parishes the marriage service is now considerably abridged?? "Upon the known and ancient custom of the clergy then, in omitting some portions of the marriage service, and in dispensing with some of the directions of the rubric, the dissenter prefers a claim to the minister that, in administering the law, he will relieve him as far as may be—that he will do that for conscience, which he does not hesitate to do for convenience.

"So far, also, is it from being the case that the Freethinking Christian would feel his marriage invalidated by the omission of such parts of the ceremony as violate his conscience-that he really offers his protest in the hope of obtaining such; and that he has in some instances positively and successfully refused to kneel before the altar, or to repeat the names of the persons of the Trinity.

"Not that the Freethinking Christians will be contented to receive that relief at the discretion of the clergy, which they are entitled to claim from the justice of the legislature-nor will they believe that relief can be long delayed, when the principle upon which it is demanded was recognized by the Marriage Act itself, in exempting Jews and Quakers from its operation, and in not being extended to Scotland—when it has since been admitted by the Irish parliament, in the act passed to allow the dissenters of the sister kingdom to marry according to their own forms-and when it was, last sessions of parliament, advocated by the most distinguished members of the state, the chief ministers of the crown, and by some even of the dignitaries of the church.

The Times, without attempting to establish any one of the objections it had originally taken to the conduct of our friends, in protesting against the marriage ceremony, replied to the above statement of our case, in the following loose and random strain of animadversion.

"We insert an instrument of considerable length, signed by some of the chiefs of the sect of Freethinking Christians,' in reply to some observations we made on a protest offered by a couple' of that sect, at their marriage according to the forms of the church of England. If the law of the land, or the ceremonies of the church, were to be altered to please the fantasy of every innovator in politics or sceptic in religion, nothing permanent or comprehensive could be established. The ritual of the church of England was made to correspond, by the wisest, the most discreet, and the most pious men that ever lived, with the belief of the majority. It cannot be made to adapt itself to the faith of a thousand different sects, or perhaps to the peculiar tenets of every individual man; for we very much doubt, whether any two members, even of this sect of Freethinking Christians, think alike upon all religious topics. Indeed, what use is there in freethinking, if they cannot be free enough to think differently from every body else, and from each other? The followers of JOHANNA SOUTHCOTT, who, we believe, are at this moment more numerous than the Freethinking Christians, would not be content with any marriage ceremony in which the name of their

saint, and an allusion to her miraculous conception, should be omitted. This scruple must be indulged also, no doubt!

"It is remarkable that the authors and attestors of the document which we publish to day, though the very leaders of the sect of Freethinking Christians, know so little of that ceremony against which they protest, that they suppose that the couple to be married have to repeat the names of the persons in the Trinity. The document says that the Freethinking Christian has in some instances positively and successfully refused to kneel before the altar, and to repeat the names of the persons in the Trinity.' If this is the chief relief they want, then-to be excused from repeating the names of the persons in the Trinity'-we are sure that there is not a clergyman of the church of England who will not readily grant it to them. He will excuse them from repeating those names, if they will allow him to repeat them; and if they will not so allow him, it must be a pretty spirit of toleration by which they are actuated! If, also, they will not pray themselves, they may surely kneel while he prays, (we would not use an irrevelent illustration, but) as men who have no appetite sit at table for the sake of courtesy with those that eat.

"But farther: if the Freethinking Christians believe marriage to be only a civil contract, why do they not contract it among themselves by civil forms? Why do they obtrude their remonstrances on the church? It may be said, because the children of such marriages would, in the eye of the law, be illigitimate, and incapable of succeeding. And how many entailed estates do all the members of the sect of Freethinking Christians possess? How much property that they cannot bequeath by will? Let replies to these questions be inserted in their next petition to the legislature. And it is under this form, in truth, that relief should be granted to them-that after a civil contract with penalties, the sexes may cohabit, and that the offspring of such unions shall inherit, if there is any patrimony, as if the parties had solemnly plighted their faith at the altar."

The above reflections of the Editor shewed so little acquaintance with the offices of the church, of which he professes to be so zealous a supporter-they manifested such a general ignorance of the merits of the question in debate and were, withall, written in a style of frivolity so little suited to the occasion, that we were of opinion, it would have been undignified on our part to pursue the subject further, with such an opponent. Here, therefore, the matter would have rested, had it not been taken up by a correspondent of the Times, of whom we have no sort of knowledge, but whose judicious and sensible letter, which appeared in the Times, Dec. 25, will best speak for itself.

"To the Editor of the Times.

"SIR, Though I have no connexion of any sort with the people called "Freethinking Christians,' yet I cannot deny that I had great pleasure in reading, in your paper of the 17th instant, an exposition of their views of the case of Dissenters' Marriages,' authenticated by the signatures of their Elder and Deacons, which appeared to me to be drawn up with great ability, and to exhibit a very clear and precise statement of the whole subject. In proportion, however, to the satisfaction derived from this well-written document, was my disappointment and regret at finding in the same paper some strictures upon

it, which, though purporting to come from the pen of the Editor, seem to be so much at variance with the liberal character of your journal, that I fully expected they would be immediately noticed by the parties concerned; but as this has not yet been the case, I trust you will not refuse admission to a few observations on them from an impartial observer.

"In the first place, Sir, I might ask you whether it is quite consistent with candour to call those persons sceptics on religion,' who profess, in this very paper on which you are remarking, to be bound in all things by the authority of scripture? I might ask further-how does it appear that the ritual of the church of England was made to correspond with the belief of the majority,' it being well known that the public worship was, in the course of a few years, first Popish-then Protestant-then Popish-then Protestant again; and that the tyrants by whom these violent changes were made, had chiefly in view the maintenance of their own authority, without the least regard to the opinions of the people? But, passing by these minor points, I proceed to observe, that in representing the question to be whether the ceremonies of the church are to be altered to please the fantasy of every innovator,' you seem to me totally to mis-state the subject. Neither the Freethinking Christians,' nor any of the 'thousand different sects,' to whom you allude, are at all anxious to make any alteration at all in those ceremonies; and the members of the church may, if they like them, continue, without any disturbance from dissenters, to enjoy them to their hearts' content to the end of time. The real question is, whether the majority'-supposing it to be really such, which in this case is very doubtful-can, consistently with common justice and common sense, compel the minority to submit to the alternative of either joining in a ceremony at which their consciences revolt, or of foregoing the enjoyments of the rights of human nature. Now to this question the Freethinking Christians, without hesitation, answer No; and to this answer, I should think, every rational and impartial man must give his assent, especially when it is considered that the marriage contract, though unquestionably of high importance, is in reality altogether a civil one, and in its nature no more a part of religion than the indentures of an apprentice, or a contract of partnership between two traders.

"May I be allowed, Sir, without offence, to say, that the hint you gave them about cohabiting without any legal marriage, is open to such obvious and manifold objections, that I presume it must have been very hastily written and I have no doubt you now wish it had never been committed to paper.

"But this is not the only part of your strictures which bears marks of haste; there is another part which perfectly astonishes me-I mean where you seem to think you have convicted the Freethinking Christians of a blunder, in supposing that persons to be married have to repeat the names of the persons in the Trinity. You tell them, that the clergyman' will excuse them from repeating them, if they will allow him to repeat them.' Now, Sir, if you will take the trouble to look into your Prayer Book, you will find that every man at his marriage is under the necessity of repeating after the priest the following words: With this ring I thee wed; with my body I thee worship; and with all my worldly goods I the endow-in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.' Now, Sir, if these denominations do not mean the persons who are, presently after, called 'God the Father, God the Son, God the Holy Ghost'-in other words, if they are not the names of what are usually called the three Persons in the Trinity, then I shall be glad to be informed by you what they do mean.

"Regent's Park, Dec. 21.

W.S."

To this letter the Times, thus convicted of carelessness and ignorance, offered the following explanation; the subdued tone of which must, as we conceive, be deemed far more fitting the occasion and the subject, than the presuming and oracular style it had heretofore assumed.

"WE insert a letter on the subject of dissenting marriages, signed 'W. S.' the best of many we have received, chiefly for the purpose of noticing an error of our own. It is certain that in looking over the ceremony, the passage cited in the letter somehow or other escaped our notice; and observing only the other passage in which the priest pronounces the couple man and wife, in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost,' we too hastily concluded that that was the only passage in which the persons of the Trinity were introduced. The other parts of the letter we leave to work what good or harm it may to the cause which it espouses.

The above article was concluded, and in the press, before any proceedings had been taken in the present session of Parliament, with regard to Dissenters' Marriages; the reader is therefore referred to the supplemental article, in the present number, for the notice of the recent proceedings in Parliament upon this subject.