Star.
London, England, 1827-01-15 00:00:00

TO THE EDITOR OF THE STAR.
January 10, 1947.
Stec,—ln the account of the conflict between the
Church and the Unitarians, as detailed in your Paper
of yesterday, it is not a little amusing to observe the
.bstinacy and inconsistency of bah the contending par-
ties. First of all the bridegroom lays down his „protest
aga'nst the marriage ceremony; the Clergyman posi•
tively requires of him to withdraw it; the bridegroom
refuses point blank, and places himself, no doubt to the
great terror of his bride, upon the brink of perpetual
celibacy—at least of single blessedness. Then the father
of the bride, with uncompromising dignity, calls upon
the I. Ecclesiastical Officer" (meaning Clergyman) to
perform his duty--(a part of which, doubtless, is to re.
ceive the protests of bridegrooms of tender conscience).
The Clergyman declares he will not marry the parties
till the abhorrent protest shall have been taken out of
the Church. The father of the bride and the bride-
, groom, with a resolute coolness, which must for ever en-
dear the latter to his spouse, refuse to comply with the
demand of the Clergyman ; and, with an air of martyr-
dom quite refreshing in this age of lax principle, an-
nounce their determination to remain before the altar
till the ceremony shall have been performed. The
silence of the affrighted bride, most probably, as on
some other occasion, being taken as evidence of her
consent. At this juncture of affairs-the " Ecclesiastical
Officer" deems it prudent to walk out of the Church.
After a short time spent in pleasant suspense, there
'atoms to the happy pair two or three ambassadors from
rho vestry, with full powers to treat for a reconciliation;
but, as the basis of their negociation, they insist on the
ramoval of the obnoxious protest out of the Church.
• of these plenipotentiaries, after exhausting the re-
. ices of his diplomatic art upon the obdurate cabinet
Hymen, talks metaphorically about the tides, in-
sinuating that it would be as easy to turn the tide as to
titange the parson from his purpose. The bridegroom,
vly fr llow, knows that in the course of time thelide does
change; and, as there has been an analogy declared
between the parson and the tide, he sagaciously con-
cludes that a little more time—a little more patience—
will cause the parson to ebb from his resolution. While
.e awaits this event,a Gentleman very boldly adventures
scaly hold of the protest, and, Ending it quite harmless
to the touch, hands it over to the timid beadle, rebuking
that officer for " allowing such things to be in the
Church." The beadle, with his prize, makes his tri-
umphant exit to the vestry, and then—but mark, not
till then, the protest being out of the Church—the tide
does turn, the Minister comes forth in full canonicals,
and performs the ceremony—only, by way of penance to
the refractory pair, contrary to the usual practice, he
reads the whole marriage service, as by law prescribed.
The childish obstinacy on both sides, and the awk-
ward way of compromising the matter, by the interven-
tion of a third party, bearing oat the bone of contention,
put one in mind of the Quakers, and their absurd punc-
tilio about their hats. But if we cannot avoid smiling
at the ludicrous aspect of the whole affair, we must not
forget, that iu tbis squabble is involved the assertion of
an important principle.
The Unitarians, in common with other Protestant
Dissenters, were, till within a few years, an oppressed
set, labouring under many disabilities. Indeed, till the
year 1813, when the penalties were abolished, to be an
Unitarian was a crime punishable by the Statute Law ;
and even yet it would seem, an Unitarian is punishable
at the Common Law for the disbelief of the doctrine of
theTtinity ; for, it is said, to deny the Trinity, is to deny
Christianity. Two years ago, a Bill to enable the
members of this sect to marry without violating their
religious scruples, passed the House of Commons ; but
WAS thrown out in the Lords by a majority of four.
The Archbishop of Canterbury • supported the Bill,
because he thought it would " do away with the un-
hallowed equivocation which, under the sanction of the
law, now takes place at the altar, and equally relieve
ihe Unitarians and the Ministers of the Established
Church." The Bishops of Coventry and of Chester
used similar arguments in its favour ; these revered
Prelates rightly deeming, to use the words of Lord
Calthorpe in the same debate, " that the Church could
not better promote her true interests, than by conform-
ing herself to the increasing knowledge and the genius
of the age." Except the Lord Chancellor, his echo
Lord Redesdale, and the Bishops of Bath and Wells,
no Peer spoke against the Bill. In the House of Com-
mons, only one Member exerted himself against the
measure; but, as he stated his suspicion that Unitarians
ere Mahometans, it is probable his opposition might
silenced, were their creed explained to him. Thus
iiAis clear, the general sense of the Legislature is in
favour of sparing the consciences of Unitarian -brides
end bridegrooms.
'Now, we may be permitted to ask, what did the
.conscentious bridegroom, in the case before us, expect
by his protest ii* Did he hope to induce the Clergyman
Po depart from the 'usual form laid down by law ? The
idea is so absurd, that we must acquit him of having
entertained it. He knew very well that the Clergyman
-dared not depart from the established form ; and know.
ing•this, what motive had be impressing his protest in
sj ioJecorous a manner ? Did he suppose the interests
of his sect would be forwarded by such conduct? or do
the sect—for lie is a mere instrument in this affair—
luxe to overcome the opposition of the Bishops to
their Marriage Bill, by thus bearding the humbler Mi-
nistels of the Church in the discharge of their duty?
Such solemn disturbances of the decorum due to the
uecincts of a place of worship, will neither raise the
nitarians in the estimation of their opponents, nor
strengthen the hands of their advocates in the two
Houses of Legislature. Their conduct savours strongly
of sectarian arrogance.
• Besides, the Unitarians ought to recollect, that other
men as well as themselves may be afflicted with tender
consciences; and that it is possible a Clergyman of the
Establishment may honestly scruple to receive, at the
altar of his Church, a protest which impugns the doc-
trines whereby he hopes for salvation. By their conduct
they would deny to one set of men what they claim for
themselves; a measure of intolerance not uncommon,
but, in the present instance, most imprudent; because
they who exercise it are the weaker party, and can only
hope to soften down prejudice, and obtain their reason-
able demands, by respectful and conciliatory behaviour.
The present ceremony—which however galling to the
tenderconscience, is subn.itted to for the sake of connu•
bial felicity—must be endured for a short while longer,
till inveterate prejudice shall yield to sense and reason.
In the meanwhile, it would be well if bi idegioorns were
to abstain from public exhibitions of their zeal in reli•
• Sic debate on the Unitarian Marriage Bill, 5d June, 1805.
t Hr. Robertson.