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

We, may use language which is more appropriate
to her Ministers, we sincerely hope that no
weapon fashioned against her will ever prosper.
Thus professing our attachment to an, establish-
ment which, relatively speaking, may be: deno-
minated all but perfect, it may naturally be ex-
pected that we are not friendly to a, Bill which
goes to operate so important a change in the
tbrms and principles of the, marriage service.
We must, however, premise, whatever credit
we may obtain with the Freethinking Christians,
that it is from no feeling of 'bigotry we are
hostile ,to it. We are by.no means disposed
to undervalue the tenderness of conscience
in 'which it is • said to have originated ; on
the contrary, we wish sincerely that such sen-
sibility was of more frequent occurrence.
All we . ask is, that those who .feel it should,
in common charity, allow for its influence on
others as well as on themselves. Nothing is
more common, than to hear Men, (ignorant
men we admit) inveigh 'against the Church and
its Ministers, because of their enforcement of
certain rules, and their observance of certain
forms, without considering that there does not
exist in the Church or in any of its servants the
power of altering one jot or tittle of those rules
and forms; and that a Clergyman is no more to
be blanied for acting in conformity with the let-,
ter of the Ecclesiastical Law, than a Judge. for
acting in conformity with the letter.Of the Civil
Law. But, granting .that a Clergyman had such,
a dispensing power, why should it be accounted
more unnatural that he should insist on observ-
ina a form which he thought just, and equitable,
and consonant to Scripture, than that a Unita-:
rian or other sectary should insist on its viola-
tion ? While, however, we argue thus, we would
not be understood as defending every part of the.
Marriage Service. We arc, indeed, the more
ready to allow, that it requires some amend-
ment, because such an admission has been,
made by two of the most distinguish-
ed Ministers of the National Church ; but,
not even their euthority,.which we acknowledge to.
be high,•could prevail on us to concede an amend-
ment of so sweeping a nature, as proposes by Mr.
Smith, which desecrates the Institution, and takes
it out of the hands of. the Clergy altogether. It has
been supposed, we believe by many who know no-
thing of the Institutions of Scotland, beyond some
vague impressions derived from what they have heard
of Gretna Green marriages, that that" country sup-:
plies an example of what Mr. Smith's Bill aims at
accomplishing, but nothing can be farther from the
truth. No marriage can be regularly celebrated in
Scotland but after banns duly proclaimed ; nor can
any one but a Clergyman perform the ceremony.—
In:respect of banns, indeed, the Scotch Church is
more strict than the English, for it dispenses with
them in no one case whatever ; and so scrupulous
on this head were the early reformers, that there
are instances on record of Clergymen having been
deprived of their livings ' for marrying persons
that had not been previously proclaimed. It
is true the -civil law holds that certain de-
clarations of parties, accompanied by cohabita-
tion, may convey the same rights to their' off-
spring, as if the appointed ceremonies had been ob-
served ; but still these marriages are irregular, and
liable to the censure of the ecclesiastical authorities:
and in this view of the law of the Church the whole
mass of the Scotch Dissenters concur. We have
stated our opinion• that the service which is di-
rected s be used for marriage might be amended
to suit certain cases, and we shall state how
far we consider such an amendment might be car-
ried without impropriety. . We would still have
the banns proclaimed, and the marriage performed
as at present, but such, portions of the service
as the parties to be married could not, from
their peculiar religious tenets, conscientiously join
in, we would allow the officiating clergyman to leave
out, on a request being made to him to that effect.
Farther than this we should not be disposed to go.
It may be said that a. ciergyman,,notwithstanding
such a permission. might not see fit to comply with
the request. - We grant such a case might happen,
but we do. not think it would be of frequent occur-
rence, and, if it were, we dO not think we should be
entitled to compel a contrary conduct. We can see
no reason why the conscience of a clergyman ought
to be offended more than the conscience of a layman.
—New Times.