Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

be asked, how happens it that these two classes enjoy this high privilege, while other classes equally respectable do not? And is there any justice in granting so partial a favor? To the first question it can only be replied, it has happened, because these two large bodies of men have stood up firmly for their rights, and would not submit to any of the ceremonies of the established church; and because government men were aware that if these people were to be compelled to violate their consciences, in order to legalize their marriages, they must inevitably lose the whole body of them, and all the advantages of a political and social nature which are derived to this country by their residing within it. It is much to be regretted that this act was suffered to pass with so courteous a silence on the part of the other Dissenters, in which no provision was made for them.

For what possible reason can be assigned, why two classes of dissentients from the established church should follow the dictates of conscience in so high a civil concern, however respectable we must acknowledge them to be, while to us it is forbidden? What possible reason, except on the ground of a religious scruple? and that religious scruples equally strong do exist in the minds of other Dissenters will appear in our subsequent remarks; while if the Quakers and the Jews are competent to make registers of their marriage contracts, and in case of need to prove the validity of such engagements, the other dissenters are equally qualified, and may do it with as much safety to the state and to the public at large.

When the District Meetings of the united Dissenters took place in the year 1789 in all parts of England, there were three objects in their view: To obtain the repeal of the Test and Corporation Acts, which was their principal object; to obtain the repeal of the penal laws relative to religious professions, and to get an emendation of the Marriage Act. It was thought expedient, in consequence of circumstances which then occurred, to drop the design of those meetings. But, so much is the spirit of the times improved, and so much are the minds of the men of talent and authority in our country enlightened since that period, that the second of these objects

has been obtained in the most gentle and gratifying manner, in a manner highly honourable to the feelings and the liberality of our houses of parlia ment. The penal laws against certain religious opinions and professions Book: that which was an offence to a are no longer a disgrace to our Statute respectable and valuable body of the subjects of these realms has been removed, without the safety of the State being even supposed to be endangered. Now, whatever opinion may be en. tertained of the Test and Corporation Acts, of the merit of which I am not the Marriage Ceremony stands exactly now going to inquire; the question of on the same ground as that of the penal laws.

country it cannot be a matter of the To the Government of this smallest consequence in what way Dissenters form their marriage contract; nor can they wish the established of that rite which unites a man to a clergy to be engaged in the celebration that which unites an infant to the woman until death, any more than in Christian Church, or which consigns a human being to the land of forgetfulness. We are allowed to bury our dead and to baptise our children, and our registers of such acts are received as legal document, why may such rite as we shall approve, and give we not also marry our young people by our legal certificate of such a riage?

mar

the marriage ceremony itself as it is Great objections are made against performed in our churches, because, although in point of fact it is a civil contract, it has been made by the laws of our land a religious rite,-thus comsign, for no other purpose than to pletely changing its character and demake it a source of wea th to the established clergy; for admitting that there marriage contract in the society of is a propriety in a public avowal of a religious professors to which the parties belong, according to the practice of both Jews and Quakers in this country, yet we have the greatest ground of complaint to our legislature of the through when entering into wedded life. service itself we are compelled to go

In the very exordium of that service surdity-"that matrimony is a honourwe are struck with the following abable state, instituted by God in the time of man's innocency, signifying unto us the mystical union that is be

Mr. Worsley on the Marriage Ceremony.

twixt Christ and his Church." This, to say the least of it, is a most delicate refinement upon the other mysteries with which Christianity has been loaded, and by which it has been well nigh borne down; and truly nothing but the very love of mystery could have led the compilers of our Liturgy to compare the union of the person of a man and that of a woman with the union of Christ and his Church. Here one cannot say what one would, to expose the absurdity of such a comparison. We must be content with remarking, that mystery has been the great source of wealth to the priesthood of old times and all times, and that a more profitable mystery has not been devised than that which mixed up the purest pleasures of life with the interests of the Christian priesthood.

Next follow the three causes for which matrimony is said to have been ordained.

There is a manifest indecency in the first cause, which certainly need not be stated in the Christian assembly supposed to be present, and which, especially when the couple appear at the altar with their hoary locks, can excite no other than a smile.

[ocr errors]

The second appears to cast a slur upon the very honourable state" itself as though it had been ordained, not as an act of pure benignity to the virtuous man, and good member of society, but as a coveit into which the rogue may fly to escape an unavoidable

erine.

The third is the only cause which can with propriety be assigned in a public company for entering the married state, and if it be necessary to offer any apology at all for the act, of which there may be a doubt, this is a sufficient oue.

Although the solemn charge which follows these causes of matrimony, cannot on its own account be objected against, yet to the virtuous couple it is perfectly needless, while the violators of decency and of rectitude will disregard it.

I know not whether I may venture to object against the queries which follow," wilt thou have this woman, &c." "" wilt thou have this man, &e." which are addressed by the priest, first to the man and then to the woman, on the ground that, as they meet on equal terms, the same solemin engagement should be entered into by both

211

of them. Yet in our service, while
the man covenants "to love, comfort,
honour and keep" the woman, she,
is required to do more, "to obey and
to serve the man."
Is there any
marked difference in the original for-
mation of the two classes of the hu
man species to justify a partiality of
this kind? Or has it not happened
that the law owes its birth to this cir-
cumstance, that the male part of the
species have been, viva voce, the
framers of human laws? Some years
ago a Liturgy was used in an English
Church on the Continent in which
many marriages were celebrated; in
that Church the man and the woman
were required to enter into the same
solemn promise and engagement with
respect to each other, "to love, com-
fort, honour and keep in sickness
and in health, and forsaking all
other," &c. Your readers will judge,
both male and female, whether that
Church or the Church of Eng
land was the more just in its re-
quirements. If, however, for a
inoment we wave the consideration of
right to make such a statute, it may be
allowed to the sceptical by-stander to
ask, what is the good of it? is it not
in most cases obliging an intelligent
creature of God to make a solemn vow
which she does not mean to fulfil?
Let the Dunmow flitch of bacon main-
tain the argument.

The charin which follows in the marriage service is one of the most entertaining things one can well conceive of; for as we are not on these occasions in a humour to be horrified at any thing, we can scarcely keep our lips in a posture sufficiently steady to articulate the magical words "With this ring I thee wed, with my body I thee worship, and with all my worldly goods I thee endow.” I must suppose that with most people these words are a mere abracadabra. They have always reminded me of the jan—van— tin-tan-tire-rare-litter-air-van

fain-well, of which, when I was a boy, I remember to have heard that these sounds were, under certain circumstances, calculated to produce a most surprising effect. A venerable Divine of the last age was accustomed to say of the words of this charm, that the man who repeats them is guilty of three of the greatest crimes which the Bible knows-with this ring I thee wed;" that is witchcraft-with my

body I thee worship;" that is idolatry "with all all my worldly goods I thee endow;" that is a lie. As a proof however of the weakness of human nature, or perhaps still more of the strength of human passions, we are also told of the venerable Seer, that he had been guilty of this three-fold crime three several times.

We know so little of the lives of Abraham and Sarah, or those of Isaac and Rebecca, that there is more than a doubt of the propriety of introducing them into the marriage ceremony; while we feel a persuasion that they would be better left out; for in truth they offer a facility of scoffing and banter to those who are disposed to turn a serious and a solemn compact into a jest.

These are objections, Sir, to the marriage ceremony of the Church of England, which, it is presumed, are felt by serious thinking men of all societies of Christians, as well in the Church as out of it. Surely the great body of the people would be pleased with being rid of so much nonsense altogether.

But the most serious objection amongst that class of religious professors by whom these pages will be read, is, the name in which this engagement is entered into, "in the name of the

Father and of the Sou and of the Holy

that they can scarcely even see that two and two make four; joking is at an end, the countenance resumes its sobriety, and for a moment we are even induced to doubt whether we ought not to turn from an altar on which we are compelled to sacrifice every best feeling, every pious devotional thought. Can it be, Sir, that under any other circumstances than those in which advantage is taken of our weakness, we should consent thus to abandon our religious principles, and act in direct opposition to our most serious convictions.

These thoughts will for the most part appear just to dissenters of all classes, and it is desirable they should unite to obtain parliamentary relief; but to Unitarians it most clearly be longs to consider this subject seriously, and to act upon it with firmness; nor can we doubt that their number, their respectability, and the disposition which is manifest in the best circles to indulge their religious views and accommodate the laws to their prejudices, will insure to them the right and pri vilege of every rational creature of God in a natural or in a social state.

ISRAEL WORSLEY.

Newport, Isle of Wight, Feb. 7, 1816.
SIR,

22.) has invited the discussion in OUR correspondent D. E. (p. Ghost." We are obliged to make a religious rite of what numbers can regard the Repository, of the question, how in no other point of view than as a far it is proper for Unitarians to be civil compact; we are obliged to go to married at Church, and has called a church to celebrate this rite from upon them to apply for legislative perwhich we carefully and conscientiously mission to marry among themselves, withhold ourselves on every other occa- as is the case with the society of sion, and we are obliged to contract an Friends and the Jews. I perfectly agree alliance in a name, which either conwith D. E. that it is extremely imveys no idea whatever to the mind, proper to oblige Unitarians to go to or which we conceive to be an insult church for this, or any other occasion; upon common sense, and an offence to because to the common objections to the One Living and True God whom the Church, which all Dissenters we worship. This, this, is the se- have, they have the additional one arisverest cut of all. The folly of some ing from their different view of Chrisparts of this service, and the indecency tian doctrine. And consequently no of other parts of it, we might perchance Unitarian can fairly join in the serupon such an occasion be inclined to vice. It is true they may stand quite tolerate by a laugh of scorn; but when unconcerned while the Priest is perwe come to use a name which we con- forming his duty; they may be quite ceive to be the foulest spot on the fair inattentive, as far as devotion is conface of Christianity, the great stumb- cerned, to the ceremony, as we may ling block of its professors, and the witness the ceremonies of the Roman terror which excludes from its pale Catholics in conducting their worship thousands and tens of thousands of se--and this I know has been done, at rius persons, or which involves in such a dreadful mist those who do enter,

least, in one instance. But still, as I very much dislike having to do with reli

J. F. on the Marriage Ceremony.

gious services, unless the heart and mind are thoroughly disposed to enter into these services with purity and spirit. I must say, I think, to consecrate marriages at Church is a profanation of the holy religion which as Christians we profess. I object to it for all Christians, not merely for Unitarian Christians. I object to it, Sir, because it is lugging in religion with a matter which has nothing to do with religion, and which belongs to the civil magistrate, and not to the priest. It may be said in answer to this, that marriage is a divine institution, and that nothing can be so proper as to enter into it, with minds imbued with a spirit of devotion, and to ask upon the act, the blessing of heaven. That marriage is a Divine institution I readily grant. It has always appeared to me So. But the contract between the parties marrying, on the notification of this contract, is a matter of civil concern. And so it is regarded in this country. D. E. justly remarks, that the remedy for the breach of this contract is to be sought for in our courts of law; for in this view the ecclesiastical court may be considered: but if we except this court, which regards only minor transgressions, or at least in a minor way-the remark is just. And it is observable that the marriage contract has been varied by different people. This any one may satisfy himself of, by going no further than to Calmet's account of it among the Jews, -who mentions a disagreement as to the ceremonies to subsist between Buxtorf, Selden, and Leo of Modena. The marriage therefore as a divine institution is one thing; the contract between the parties quite another. It may however still be said, if the institution be divine, is it not right to keep up the idea of its being so, by celebrating the contract within the sacred walls used for the purposes of devotion? Is it not right then to ask, as is done by the present ceremony, and as if in the more immediate presence of the Almighty, whether the parties are aware that there is any impediment why they may not be lawfully joined together in matrimony; and to assure them that "so many as are coupled together otherwise, than God's word doth allow, are not joined together by God, neither is their matrimony lawful?" To which I reply, provided marriage were entered into as

VOL. XI.

2 F

213

a religious obligation, this might be well; but as it is notoriously not so entered into, it appears to me to be a shameful farce of things holy, to put such questions; more especially as the young people or the by-standers are not told what it is that God's word allows or forbids thereupon. And if they were told, would it in any probability have any effect? Mr. Editor, the discussion of the subject of marriage is almost sure to give rise to some droll ideas; and I feel that in handling it I may be thought fanciful; but I must say there are two things omitted in the cautions given to young persons on this head which appear, to me at least, essentially to be avoided in marriage, provided it is expected that the Divine blessing will attend it. First then, I say, I think property, or consideration of property, should never be the basis of the marriage contract. I do not mean that a wife with forty. thousand pounds may not be more convenient for many purposes than a wife with only one; but I do mean that he who marries the woman with forty thousand pounds, while he really in his heart and judgment prefers the woman with only one, is a complete violator of the institution of marriage. For if, as appears both from the Old and New Testament, to be the case, the man and wife are to be as dear to each other as though they were one flesh, does not he thwart the design, and go contrary to the spirit of the institution who marries, what, in respect to his feelings of regard, is nothing but a statue of gold? It cannot be said that those enter into the benign spirit of this institution, who make it a matter of traffic, or political regulation. But further, those persons violate the marriage institution, who enter into it, having previously thereto been connected with any other man or woman, such man or woman being still alive. If I can read my Bible rightly, marriage is the connection between the sexes: and the first connection (in the eye of heaven) forms the man and wife. I consider those to be, in the estimation of heaven, adulterers and adulteresses, who take a wife or a husband at church, unless all those with whom they have been previously connected are dead. Some of your readers, Sir, will smile at this remark, and say, "who then will be saved?" To this question, which need

not be answered, I shall only say, I hope, for the sake of my fellow-christians at large, that my views are wrong. If, however, I am right, what hypocrisy, what profanation is it for our marriage ceremonies to be performed in Church! It would be more in character for ninety-nine couples out of the hundred to be joined by the hangman rather than the priest. We talk much of Christianity having abolished polygamy. I am no friend to the practice; but of one thing I am certain, that it has no where so strongly prohibited polygamy as it has forbidden fornication: and when I look through the Jewish religion, and see how well female virtue was protected, I cannot believe that under the Christian system, those will be regarded with the favour of the Universal Parent, with whatever pomp their marriages may have been solemnized, to whom we owe the necessity of Penitentiary houses, Magdalen hospitals, &c. &c. From these observations, you will observe, Sir, that the devotional spirit which some people think so proper for persons to possess who are about to enter into holy matrimony, and which they also think the present mode of solemnizing it has a tendency to promote, I think should be felt before marriage is thought of at all. And the man who only feels devotionally in this matter just when the priest is going to tie him by a knot which cannot be undone for life, has the same sort of bastard devotion as the culprit feels, in the apprehension of encountering on the morrow the hangman's noose.

If these imperfect hints, Mr. Editor, should provoke a discussion, which, conducted with as much modesty as the subject will admit of, shall tend to make the institution of marriage more rightly understood, more devotionally sought after, and more religiously observed, I shall be satisfied in having brought it before the notice of your readers. At all events I shall be happy to see success attend the exertions and project of your correspondent D. E. J. F.

[blocks in formation]

since seen it posted up in many parts of the parish, and to-day another advertisement intended as a defence of the Rector, I send you copies of both.

[ocr errors]

The first will shew in what terms the meeting was advertized, which the Reverend Gentleman was, it seems, apprehensive might" convert so sacred an edifice" as his freehold-the church, into a bear garden." The. other exhibits an authentic exposition' of his "great lenity and forbearance," towards one of his parishioners, who did not understand, as is evident, the paper he signed, and three others whose confessions relate only to the alleged libel, and who may not be very competent judges, and especially under the dread of an impending prosecution, how far the large hand-bill contains any libel against the Rector, unless it be his own letter.

Prosecutions are however, I understand, going on against at least eight of the Rector's other parishioners, including the author of the imagined libel, all of whom refuse to make any similar acknowledgement, or to sign their names to any such paper. I forbear making any observations on their confession which the Rector has been authorized "to insert in one or more ofthe daily papers, or to publish in any other way which he may think advisable," than on a few plain matters of fact. I would in the first place observe, that to claim the right of opposing the circulation of the Holy Scriptures in the manner the Rector's letter to the Churchwardens proposes, and to which the said hand-bill refers, is not to attempt opposing their circulation entirely, or in any other manner. Nor is it to charge him with

attempting to prevent the circulation" of those writings amongst his parishioners altogether, but only through the medium of the Bible Society, which is well known to distribute them without the Prayer-Book. My introductory observations, which were published long before I had any know. ledge, or even suspicion that such a prosecution was thought of, will evince that this was my impression of the extent of the Rector's objection to the circulation of the Scriptures by the Bethnal Green Bible Association, which surely his letter warrants, and he will not deny. One of his parishioners has since confessed that he has frequently calumniated, unjustly op posed, and wilfully misrepresented his

« AnteriorContinuar »