to scriptural inquiry formed themselves into a congregation, and assembled for the worship of the One True God the Father, in the name and as disciples of the Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, on the following Sunday. Their meetings continue with prospect of success; but whether their numbers increase rapidly or not, the small society will be they are striving to worship in spirit and in truth, the great and gracious Father of all; they bow not in Rimmon's temple they attend not a worship which their understandings reject, nor countenance a faith which their hearts abhor. The readers of the Christian Pioneer, with all who prefer free dom to bondage, and value Christian integrity before time servingness and expediency, will unite their prayers for their increasing knowledge, comfort, and happiness for their firmness, tempered by mildness, and their faith evi denced by their good works, with those which are offered up to the Great Being, for whose honour and glory they have associated, by their faithful friend, 03 ARGUS. 151 doua ad bluoda ir 319 320 Motsje sustained by the conscio the small society The English Unitarians and the Marriage Question; reddedT edt to giderow edton ylaistie To vindicate the cause of justice-to teach oppression rightthe cause eousness-to animate suffering conscience to awaken apathy to zeal to arouse inconsistency to uprightness to inspire timidity with courage and to recall sinful conformity to holy fidelity, the following Conversations are presented to the public, through the medium of the Christian Pioneer, May the blessing of the God of truth accompany them! Amen. ed DAN ENGLISH UNITARIAN OD SUTS L. You do not bow down to any objects of worship that have no warrant in the Scriptures; it is all delusion. -P. To what, then, do we bow down: to God, or to man? L. To neither.-P. To neither! that is wonderfully strange 1997 JUC L. Strange as it may appear, it is no more strange than true: you bow down to the authority of the law.-P. Indeed I am at a loss to believe you serious. You would never contend, for a moment, that the law possesses a power inherent in itself. The power of the chief magistrate, is the authority of the law; and if it be to this that we bow in the ceremony, it is to the authority and power of mangot L. Well; and if it be so, should not the chief magistrate be obeyed?-P. Doubtless he should, in things that are proper. Z. And do you not say, that it is proper that there should be a law respecting marriage, and a certain form for people to go through, when entering into the marriage state?-P. Most certainly; but it should be such as all may conform to, without violating their consciences. L. I admit it, abstractedly considered; but people have often very scruples, and were we to have a law for every little fastidiousness of conscience, our statutebook would be ten times the size it is.-P. This, then, brings us again to the point from which you have deviated the Marriage Ceremony, as it operates with regard to Unitarians. You have admitted, that we ought not to obey man, in things that are improper; that is, such as do violence to the conscience. Can you, then, as a conscientious Unitarian, conform to Trinitarian worship? or, in other words, can you worship three distinct beings or persons, when you believe that there is only one proper object of worship? Can you worship a God the Son, when you believe him to be a man approved of God? or a God the Holy Ghost, when you believe it to be the Spirit, or divine influence of God? L. Certainly not. The worship of the Spirit, as God, is, in my opinion, no more justifiable, than the worship of the attribute of wisdom, power, or goodness, as a God; and the worship of the Son, is expressly forbidden by the Son himself. In that day ye shall ask me nothing." Jesus Christ has taught us, that "the Father is the only true God;" he has directed us to worship only the Fa H ther; and he has assured us, that the true worshippers are those that worship the Father in spirit and in truth. But still, I may be present where Trinitarian worship is offered up, and yet not engage in that worship. And if the marriage service be a religious service, and Trinitarian worship, it would not follow, that I gave my assent to its doctrine, or took part in its devotion, though I conformed to it as the law of the land.-P. You began with great candour, but you ended with a complete fallacy, or I am very much mistaken. That the service is a religious service, is clear, from its being found in the Common Prayer Book; from its containing prayers; and from its being performed in a Church, at the altar, and by a clergyman in bis sacerdotal robes. That it is Trinitarian in its character, is evident, from the words "Father, Son, and Holy Ghost," and "God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost;" which latter words explain the former, and show the sense in which they are used. And, that the parties are required to join in it, is manifest, from their being ordered to kneel; which, in a religious service, is doubtless an act of worship-whether sincere or not, is best known to Him who searcheth the heart. Besides, if the parties themselves do not engage in it, who then do? It is solely on their account that it is performed; for, if they did not present themselves to the officiating minister, for the purpose of being married, there would be no service at all. L. But still, I do not see that you are obliged to give your assent either to the doctrine or the worship. You conform to it as a civil requirement and a civil law. You have your own thoughts, and the clergyman has his. And why should it disturb you, if he pronounced a blessing upon you, in the name of three stocks, or three stones, or three reptiles? P. That the service answers the end of a civil compact, I readily admit; but it is in itself distinctly of a religious character. You are required to kneel while prayers are offered up, and it is solely on your account that they are offered up. You kneel, it is true, by the authority of the chief magistrate; but it is not to him that you kneel, but to the Trinity. The act is a religious one either in sincerity, or mere semblance. If the former, as a Unitarian, you abjure your faith. If the latter, you are guilty of simulation. It is not what we may wish to think of a ceremony, or what we may wish to persuade ourselves to think, that makes it either this or that; but 66 what it is in itself; and when we conform to the cere mony in question, it is in the sense in which it was compiled, and in which it is declared to be used in the Church where it is performed. "All positive duties," observes a celebrated divine," or duties made such by institution alone, depend entirely upon the will and declaration of the person who institutes or ordains them, with respect to the real design and end of them; and consequently to the due manner of performing them." It was argued by one of the Bishops, the present Bishop of Bath and Wells, that every one was at perfect liberty to affix what meaning he pleased to the words;" when it was very properly replied, by the late Archbishop of Canterbury, that "he had heard it said, with great surprise, that the words might be used by the minister in one sense, and received by the parties in another. What was this but to encourage prevarication, and a simulated assent to doctrines which the parties did not believe?" As to a blessing being pronounced in the name of three stocks, &c. you, perhaps, would feel no scruple at receiving such a blessing. But supposing that these three stocks, &c. were each invoked separately as gods, to bless you, and you, at the same time kneeling, in the posture of devotion, would you not think that you were doing wrong, and countenancing false worship? Z. In such a case, I perhaps should; but this is very different from the case in question. There are no stocks, or stones, or reptiles invoked as gods, in the ceremony under consideration; and this part of your argument at least does not bear upon the point.-P. I know there are no such deities recognised by the service in question; but are there not gods recognised that you do not believe to be Gods? And if so, do you not, by engaging in it, conform to, and countenance what you believe to be false worship? L. I do not conform to any thing of the kind; and therefore I do not countenance any thing of the kind. I obey the law of my country in regard to marriage, entirely in a civil capacity. I divest it of the dress which forms have wrapped around it, and view it simply in its essence, as a civil obligation; and in this light only do I conform to it.P. If it were as easy to change its character, as to speak the words, your position would be tenable. But, as no saying it can alter it a single iota, all your sayings must be utterly in vain. Galileo, from the terror of persecution, denied that the earth revolved; but it still moved on as before, notwithstanding his declaration; and it would have moved still, had he believed his own words, L. But does not the Apostle Paul say, that "he that regardeth the day, regardeth it unto the Lord; and he that regardeth not the day, to the Lord he doth not regard it?"P. Yes, but he never dreamed that by saying so, he could convert day into night. All that he meant was, that a regard to the approbation of God, may equally influence persons of opposite sentiments; and that all who are actuated by such a motive, will be graciously accepted of God. L. That is all that I require in the present case; I ask, I wish for no more; grant, that the approbation of God should be our rule of conduct, and that we are perfectly safe when we follow it, and I am quite satisfied that I should not offend God by conformity to the marriage ceremony, Trinitarian, as it may be supposed to be; for I should submit to it as a civil regulation, necessary to preserve the purity of public morals, and therefore with a view of doing that which is best and most pleasing to God. -P. But don't you know, that the Apostle disclaimed the doctrine of doing evil that good might come; a and that, when he and the rest of the Apostles were charged with acting on such a principle, they were slandered. L. I do not admit that I am doing evil, in pursuing such a line of conduct, and therefore your argument, founded upon the Apostle's words, cannot apply to my case.-P. What is it right, then, to acknowledge more gods than one? Is it lawful to bow down to them, and serve them? You say, "To us there is but One God," and that this One God is "the Father"—that "the Father is the only true God" and that "the true worshippers must worship the Father, in spirit and in truth." These things you assert, and know full well. How, then, do you act consistently with them, when you engage in worship addressed to two other objects as gods, besides the Father? It is really weak to say, that you engage in it, and that you do not engage in it. But it is more than weak to say, that though you give an outward assent to it, yet you inwardly condemn it. You have quoted the Apostle Paul, with evident satisfaction. I also will quote him, and perhaps more to the point. He says, "To him that knoweth to do good, and doeth it not, to him it is sin.” L. Well, where is your point? The words have not the most distant application to me, or to the arguments which I have advanced. I do, I have affirmed what I believe |