The Sun.
London, England, 1827-06-28 00:00:00

~~
f;; :o

profess the"opinions of the Confession of Augs-
burg, or of -ICalvin's Institutions, without great
modifications. The subdivisions again are con-
stantly changing from the principles which were
entertained by their respective founders • Soci-
nians, for instance, were at one time Superna-
turalists, and at another, Rationalists. The Uni-
tarians by no means agree among themselves, so
that all who are included under that denomina-
tion could subscribe sincerely to the same creed.
The Church of England has for centuries, it is
true, retained the • same Articles, but the inter-
pretation of these Articles has been constantly
varying. At one time Arminianism was heresy,
at another Calvinism ; and at last, to end disputes
it is an understood matter, that each man inter-j,
prets the Articles in his own nay. When the;
Bishop of Peterborough, who bears A strong,
hatred to Calvinism,-framed a number ef Inter-
rogatories some years ago, after the inan-I
nor of those of Chancery, with a view to;
detect the meaning of the subscribers of Articles
in his diocese, his conduct was exclaimed against,
as savouring of persecution. It seems, indeed,
rather singular, that such extraordinary hatred!
should be shown to diversity of interpretation,
by a man who has himself broached more new;
readings of the Sacred "Writings, and started more
new hypotheses, than any man of his day. But,
however that may be, it is clear that the liberty
of examination and of interpretation allowed by
Protestants, must necessarily lead to constant',
diversity of judgments, and that no form of
words that can possibly be devised, will secure
identity of belief among the subscribers of Ar-
ticles. Hence the variety of interpretations which
Protestant Clergymen have given even of the
plainest pas,:sages in Scripture. A learned Cler-
gyman Inas reckoned eighty-five different expla-
nat=ions of that plain parable of the " Unjust,
Steward," 'in St. Luke xvi, ; and one hundred.
and fifty in Chap. iii. ver. 20. of the " Epistle
to the Galatians." But how is it that Lord El-'
don means to
.get over the difficulty ?, We al-
low that Unitarian is as vague as Protestant, Pres-
byterian, Dissenter, or any other term applied to
bodies of religionists. But does he mean that the'
Unitarians ought to be made to give in a confession ,
of Faith, like that of Augsburg, in order that
the exemption from the Marriage Act shall be
confined to those who shall subscribe this creed ?
But this would only give him a nominal 'assur-
ance that the exception benefited the 'particular
opinions for which the Legislature intended it.
In a Country in which no toleration is allowed
for diversity of creeds, religious ceremonies may
be prescribed by the Legislature, in order to give
greater solemnity to the marriage obligation ; but
in a country like England, where a liberal tole-
ration is allowed, where, on paying 6d. any man
may teach what doctrines lie pleases, may, like
the followers of Johanna Southcot, obtain a
Shiloh from an old woman of eighty—there is
'obvious inconsistency in first letting teachers
loose among the people, and then, after all sorts
of opinions have been embraced; prescribing a
religious ceremony adapted for a particular
:Church, to all the numerous Dissidents, on an
event which the Legislature cannot prevent with-
out involving society in confusion. The Legis-
lature may prescribe all manner of civil securi-
ties, with a view to guard against improper mar-.
riages, and to preserve the evidence of the con-
tract ; but to be consistent with itself, it ought:
either to decree uniforniity in religion, 'or to i
leave the religious ceremony to be regulated by
the respective Churches. By following out this!
principle, Unitarians and all other Arians who
object to the formula in the Book of Common[
Prayer, might be allowed the liberty for Which;
they contend withoutbeing tieddown to a creed on r
which they might not all agree; or assenting to a defi-
nition, which could at most embrace a few points
which all of them disbelieve, leaving the points on
which they agreed uncertain. In Scotland, where!
the old Law of Europe is still retained, and where,
all that is requisite to constitute a marriage is the
proof of:-the agreement of the parties, marriage is
considered by all persons having the slightest pre-
tensions to respectability a religious ceremony, and,
nine hundred and 'ninety-nine marriages out of aj
thousand take place in the manner prescribed by the:
respective Churches 'through the agency of a Cler-
gyman. The Legislature of this country, for the!
sake of facilitating the obtaining evidence of mar-
riage,l
on which so much often depends, has .madel
the Clergy the depositories of the registers. In
France the registers are confided to Civilians. The
Clergy, we, should suppose, are the best depositaries,.
from their superior respectability. Indeed, in many;
parts of the country it would not be safe to entrust.
records of such importance to'any 'other individuals.
But, in keeping this record, the Clergyman acts as
much in a civil capacity as he does when he sits en
the Bench as a Justice of Peace. We do not see
how he can be degraded in recording the marriage:
of a Jew, or even a Turk, if Turks were to be al-
lowed to contract marriage here, than he would be.
degraded by committing or convicting a Jew or
Turk. There might be some reason for contending
that the performing in his own church the marriage
ceremony,- in cases where the parties are not of.
US communion, is degrading him, but there 'can be
none for imposing on him a dnty into which religion
does not at all enter. The State has a right tothe
services of all those who enjoy its protection, and if
Clergymen are the individuals best qualified for the,
performance of so useful a duty as the keeping Re-
gisters of Births, Marriages, and Deaths, they are
not entitled to shrink from it. But Lord Eldon,
who can see no degradation in a Clergyman perform-
ing in his own Church the ceremony of marriage in
the case of members of a different communion, con-
siders the entering the Certificate of a Marriage per-
formed elsewhere in a Register' kept by; him for the'
public good, in the light of a degradation. By the'
bye, his Lordship was rather out in his historical
knowledge when he asserted, that " in the time of
the Commonwealth, when men were married, as it
was now proposed, before Justices of the Peace—a
measure a
thedopted for th
Cle express purpose of degrad-;
g t gy— ergy.
'Nvere called in to aid
in
and assist in their own degradation?' His Lordship
ought to have known that Presbyterianism was es_.
tablished throughout England in 1646, and that the'
-lnarriage to the Justices of the
law transferring
Peace was first pasSed in 1653, so that the intention
was not and could not possibly be to degrade the
Clergy of the Church of England (to whom he al-.
ludes), who were not then established. We have
not deemed it worth while to notice the many ab-
surdities with which his Lordship's speech abounds..
Morning Chronicle.
Notwithstanding the astonishing " march of
intellect," of which we hear so much, the art o
writing with perspicuity seems not to be very
well understood by some of our Cabinet Minis-
ters.,
There is an affected and verboSe style,!
called 14 some the diplomatic, very Much in
vogue among our public functionaries, which is
eminently calculated, to involve in obscurity
the si4lest propositions. The style has neither
force, elegance, nor clearness; but there is a cer-,
tain air of assumed importance and mock solena-I
nity about it, which is a poor substitute for con
cise and intelligible expression. The little mean-I
lug which one has to extract from the redundant
verbiage of this mode of Writilig) reminds us of
Dr. Johnson's illustration of the "- guinea
wrapped up in a ivoolpack." It was by indulging
in this sort of affected and involved expression,
'iiiitead usin'tlie simplest and most obvious