On this page

• Text (1)

  Note: This text has been automatically extracted via Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software. The text has not been manually corrected and should not be relied on to be an accurate representation of the item.

  • 

    Untitled Article

• Transcript

  • Note: This text has been automatically extracted via Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software. The text has not been manually corrected and should not be relied on to be an accurate representation of the item.

    Additionally, when viewing full transcripts, extracted text may not be in the same order as the original document.

    Untitled Article

    Unitarians upon the same footing as Jews aud Quakers , by simply excepting their . marriages from the operation of the general marriage law , a plan which , in the absence of those distinctive features of costume and discipline that characterize Jews and Quakers , would obviously make a formidable inroad upon the policy of Lord Hardwicke ' s Act , and ha * nothing to recommend it unless that it would enable a few scattered

    bigots to stigmatize such marriages as out of the pale of the law , and invite a renewal of those harassing objections to which the Quakers and other Nonconformists appear to have been subjected , in relation to some of the civil rights enjoyed by the community at large . The author ' s leading objection to the Bill of last Session is thus stated :

    " In removing , as it does , the solemnization of marriage from the parish church and the parish pr iest , and transferring it to the civil magistrate in his private room , there is so entire an omission of all religioji in the ceremony , and

    yet so much admixture , so mueh instrumentality laid on the ehurch in carrying into execution the forms of the contract , as appear to be decidedly iueompatible with the feelings of the church , and in many respects with the safety of its doctrines . "—P . 28 .

    There ts much plausibility and some justice in this objection as regards the feelings of the clergy , but the author grows wild when he proceeds to represent the Bill as relieving the parties from " any tie , religious or moral , from any obligation but that which may accidentally arise in their own minds , as

    applied to the marriage state . " The obligations of the marriage state , according to Mr . Le Geyt , are not merely enforced , but are actually originated by the marriage ceremony according to the Rubric . Should the Legislature enact that in certain cases marriage is equally valid by lay bands as by the regular clergy , they

    would defy the ordinances of God , and bring down upon the luckless magistrates all those judgments which fell upon Korah , Saul , Uzzan , and Uzziah , who were in ancient times convicted usurpers of the rights of the priesthood . Our author ' s ratiocination here proceeds with rapid strides , overturning the most obvious distinctions and the most

    notorious facts in ita decisive progress . Marriage 13 a Hate instituted by God him-8 t 4 f , therefore a religious itutiiuiion , therefore a religious ceremwtg , therefore only to be performed by priest * . The Bill proposed to exempt the clerical ma-

    Untitled Article

    gistrates , out of respect to their peculiar sensibilities on this topic , from any obligation to celebrate these unhallowed contracts ; " the exception , " says our author , " distinctly admits the impropriety of lay interference , for how can a layman with propriety perform that which a clergyman in his lay capacity cannot ? " Thus is a concession to the scruples of the clergy tortured into an admission of their validity , with the same perverse ingenuity as is elsewhere applied to represent every aud any legislative relief , as necessarily implying the admission of the reasonableness of the Unitarian ' s teuets , as well as of his conscientious scruples grounded upon those tenets , and consequently " impugning one of the venerable rites of the National

    Church , " and " levelling a deadly wound against the religious aud moral feelings of the country . " The same felicitous course of argument would shew that the Legislature , in admitting the affirmations of Quakers , denied the sanctity of an oath , and committed a shocking outrage upon public morals , by inflicting the same punishment upon a fal-e

    affirmation as upon perjury . True it is , that the Legislature , cannot alter the foundations of religion and morality ; let this satisfy our author as to his theologicial views of the marriage tie ; but , upon hi * own shewing , shonld the pr inciples of government compel them to relieve

    Unitarians from an exception to the general toleration , it seems incumbent on the Legislature in withdrawing one of the reputed sanctions of the Marriage vow , to supply its place by every enforcement which inerely human authority can dictate . We nh . y here refer onr author to the sensible remarks of the Reviewer of

    his pamphlet in the Christian Remembrancer for last month , and to some admirable passages there cited from Sir W . Scott ' s Judgment in Lindo v . Belisario , Haggard ' s Reports , Vol . 1 . p . 230 , which ought for ever to close the discussion as to the nature of the Marriage contract . It is , however , observable , that , with much that is fair aud judicious , the

    Reviewer in question mixes op some insinuations which are unworthy of its general spirit , and are indeed borrowed from Mr . Le Geyt , whose lamentable confusion of ideas they expose . The adoption of the Free-thinking Christians ' petition as indicative of the opinious and feeling * of the great body of Unitarians is sufficiently disingenuous ; the ivfoh to secnlariie marriage is most unjustly charged upon them . Their anxiety has been to comply with the fair deujands

    Untitled Article

    Critical Notices . 263

• Citation
  • Monthly Repository (1806-1838) and Unitarian Chronicle (1832-1833), April 2, 1828, page 263, in the Nineteenth-Century Serials Edition (2008; 2018) ncse-os.kdl.kcl.ac.uk/periodicals/mruc/issues/vm2-ncseproduct2559/page/47/