Dissenters' Marriages.
The Times, 1824-12-17T00:00:00

TheElder and Deacons of thelondonbranchofthes rchofeod commonly known an " Freethinking Chri,tians," haitvig onSerret that the late conduct of-two of their members, in ptotesfing auainst the marriage ceremony, has exposed them to The marked anTijuad versions of a leading dnily jourral, feel themselves called uponr through the same medium, to submit to thepublic the g-tounds anti reasons of their conduct. Marriage is regarded by the law of England, and it is held by the Freethinking Christian, to be a civI contract; awd even if the Jan. guage of the Liturgy be adopted, wliuch represents matrimony as "instituted of God in the time of man's first innocency," it is cer. tain ithat mnarriage must then have been performed without the inter. vention of a priest. If in the progress of society it has bhen thought necessary to super. add a religiotus solemnztitioi to marriage, in order to Increase the sanctions of that state, the very reasons which superinduce suena ceh cessity must be defeated, unless the solemnization be consistent with the conscience, and accordant with the faith ef those wvho are to be bound thereby. By a comnparatively recent Act of Parliament (26 Geo. IL., cap. 33), a submission to the mariage ceremony, as nerformed b1 te chureh of England, was, for the first time, imposed on allwho sought to obtain a legal sanction to mariage, Jewaand Quakera alone excepted. Derived chiefly from the Roman ritual and inass books, themar- riage ceremony of the church of England appears to the Freetbink. ing Christiang to be Popish in its doctrines, superstitioua in its fermra, and unsuited in its terms to the refinement of the age, or the occasion on which it is used. Bouad in all things by the authority of Scripture,and the diccttes of conscience, the Freethinking Christian refuses to Yield a volun. tary submission to the marriage service, whicb, if die abovc repre-- sentation be correct, it is difficult to suppose can be approved b any serious well-informed Protestant. The objections of the free- thinking C.hristian, however, to this service, may be categoricaUy saeas follows: Because that service is part and parcel of the religion of the state, and nmust as suCh, and of consequence, be opppscd to the religion of Jesus. Because it is not a service enjoined in the Scriptures, -but is an assertion only of the unscriptural claim of the church to 4ecree ritea and ceremonies. Becaust the service implieS a recognition of the doctrine of the Trinity, and directs diviae honours to " the Man Christ Jesus." Because, performed as a religious service, by a person in " pree tendud holy orders," it carries with it an admission of the claims of the priesthood; vwhich claims, whether to be regarded as a separate body among Christians, as the ministers of Christ, or the exclusive teachers of religion, are unfounded in Christianity. ecause it is a public outwvard act of joint and rocial prayer, and as such is contrary to the spirituality of the Cbristian religion, and to the insructiots cf him who thugh his disciples to pray in sectet Because no esathly tribunal can possess the right to propose a test for relgious opinion, much less to Tender the violation of conseience the conidition of obtaining a civil riUht. Beause, in several particulars, It is not accordant with that ptrity of mind which sho.ld at a'l times characterize the Christian. With these objections to the marriage ceremony, as imposed upon him by the law, the Freethinking Christia7a offers his protest against that ceremony, or rather against a forced recognition af that ceremony in his instance. Me disclaims all belief in the doctrines lie is compelled to subscribe ; he declares it is by an act of compulsive conformity alone that his submission is obtained to the forms of the church; he disowns the sacred functions of the ministeraboutto perfbrm the service; he purges his conscience from all assent to unchristian doctrines, and prastisee both in the sight of God and of man. Thie prokest he delivers publtcly, in the church,beforethc "altar " and to the minister. Publicly-betsc the ceremony is public. in the church-becautse in the church he is compTelled to submit-to such ceremony. Before the "altar"_becausc betore the " ltar" he is rciiuired to yield an especial homage. To the minister. because the minister is the legal, the immediate, and willingagent- lnpetforrning P service which, under the ciecumstances. must- be fd to. be as great an infraction of conscience as it is a profarnation of religion. The Freethinking Christian, then, according to his apprehension, delivers his protest at the timne, in the place, and tot the party. when, where, and to whom it is most suitable to be delivered; anrd this in a manner anti under circumsstaces in which it is most likely to prove efiective-fitst, in satisfying his own eonsclence; and, ae- cond, in upholding to the world the wickedness, tothelegisbltarethe injustice, and to ithe church the inconvenience, ef obtaining a forced conlfiormtly tO established doctrines. Other and concurrent deorts havc been used by the Freethinking Christian6 to acssrt in this particular the rights of conscience. They have been the first religious body who, by means of the press, have alled the attention of Dissenters to this important subject; and for many years past, and on severaloccaions, they have, in common with the UTnitatian body, petitioned both Houses of Parliament for relief. Thtus petitioning the Legislature as the framers of an obnoxious law, and protesting to the clergy as the executors of such law, have the Freethinking Christians preceeded. They are, indeed, arware that when law is opposed to censcience, no course can be wholly free from objection ; but they submit that it is not for these who inflict a wrcng to eomplain of the manner in wvhieh It is either received or -resisted It is not denied that the presenting of protests, according to the tactice of-the Freethinking Chri.stins, must be painful to the lergy; tut the Inconvenience is one occasioned by the law, and the clergy. man is a willing instrament of the law. Bee tulee upon hinuelf priest's orders.-he enjoys the honours aRd emoluments of his call- ing-snd shall he refuse to take the burden with the benefit, when he offers himnself as the instrument of power to violate therights of con- science ? It results also from this statemeut of the case, that it is by a sophism ordy that the situation of him who performs the Ceremny- can be held to be the same as that of tile parry to Whom it is adna-. nistered; for'it is really distiigished itherefrom by all the difitence betwveen voluniarv acceptancealid conmpulsory submission. It is asked, "what have the clergy of the established church to do with prtests of this nature? Or, where is the acceptance of them enjoined as part of -their duty ?" The question is mvidious to the clergy, and can only be raised upon the presumption of their being the passive instrutnenta of arbitrary power; or hirelings eating not for the Sock. For if the clergy of the church of England be, as Lhey profess to be, the servantb or Christ ;-if tbey hold, as they protess to holdl, religion to be a Bacred affair between man and his omaker ;-if they honour,ag they profess to bonour,the principles of the Reformation, which overtbrew the dominion of law over con. science _-then, by the -meekness aad gentleness of Christ-by all that is sacred in religion-by whatever was great and glorious in the example of our reformers--are t'hey bound to receive every de- claration by which .onscience shall assert its rights, aid religion maintain its consistency. It is said that ' it would be quite as rational in the clergyman to. give te ople a protest on account of their faitb, as fortheni togive nttus one on account of a rite containcd in the Book of Common Prayer." Perhaps it would: only it should seem the clergyman is more willing to comusil his conscience to the keeping of the state, than theFreetisinking Christian is disposed to do: otherwiscindecd, there seems no reason wlly the clergman should not protest to the Dissenter against being considered a willing party to so indecent a mockery 0o religibit, as the perlarmance-of a solemn ceremony to those who have opesly and beforehand repudiated its sanctions, denounced its ministers, and denied its doctrines 1 Stich protests on the part of the clergy, ii accompanied by petitions to the Legislature, would tendspeedily to relieve themselves from a painftl duty, sad Vissenters from a degrading submission. At pree- sent, however, the clergy have neither protested nor petitiosed; but tiley have, by an overwhellming opposition, during the last scasion of Parliament; defeatedathat measure of Telief which was proposed -to tnalte the chcrnci respectable, and the Dissenter free. It is part of the case of' the Dissenter, that thc evil originated : witlh and is now upield by THE CHituRc. A corrupt pentiff misuamed Innocent (the third), irst rendered marriage in the churcih. compulsory,; aid raised it to the rask of a sacrasnent- The Reibrmed Churctl, thtruigh the terrors ci- the ecdlesnstical courts, continued to atsert lle exclusive calam of solenlinmnie2gtr-ea rinae. This claims wis;' fir the first tsine%sanctioneds by,set3of Pariaacnt in I=3.- By the progress of oplit uthe lasw'has become opprebslve toDi,setnteri t;thlyhave )e2itilsd the Ligislature ,ior roeft, and the clergy have oippoed their pnsl-r Mhe,- t4erefo.c, the Dissenter proests to the clergy nf a-wioeg, ~it isi noc. -w.lloit -t sense thiit they havc a corhupt interesr iti-that 'Wrong-r..tiathei are; the cause of its continuance, by bcin tbehobstacle to its;itnoVA , -Thecifaruch, it is true; ltas becomietOlerai t-bhttw1icn the33s. senter calls to mnind the cnligbtezcd deilatatfon &aide.b) Ahe Prim*- ;Ltinister-ofthe Crow n during tdie debat on the bill forgivtg, relics to Dissenters in this particuilar, tlhat " the argument fr th&pucipnlsl i of the bill was unanswerable, as long as Jews and Quaskors werm i.- empted from-submission to thec marriage ltervice," can e for- bis Lordship's -too pronmpt-and- devout ast'urance - to the revtijmi bencb, that " he was at the same tine unWillinS tO e,O 'iny g0 whic sould-iot- receive tlt ayprobalinn ol othe chturc&." m'ftWe c1&rgy,tfien, inMlittir)g ioltiosof th-marriC~ serice, aid'itj tlispensing.with some directions of the rubric, the Dissenter prefers a claim to the ertbnt, iWaIminitritng the law~, he will relieve himi as Yarn2s e-alsathe wzlldc then%r'qonsciene, whlck he doesneot hei- haalso, is it from being the ease that thte FPethinting Chilsi. ou -d eleaeinvOIidated by the omission of tluch of' thet ceremolny us violate his conscienice, that he really o&frs flest.inheh14pca of obtaining such; and that he has in some ces p6ilitjvely.and successfulily refused to kneel before the altar, epeat.the namIea of the persons of the Trinity. t thai the Freethinking Chiistians will be contented to receive tief at the-discretion of thv clergy which they are entitled to fim.the-justice of' the Legislature.-..nor will they believe that can be long delayed, when the principle upon which iLils tie- Adwa-T recogized by the AlarriageAct itself, in exempting an4 Qsuakers from its operation, and in not being extendled 'tlaud-when it has been since admitted by the Irish Par. it,. n the actpassed to allow the Disschters of the sister king- .onarry acrixng tn their own formns~_nd when it wss, last i-of T;rfarrent7 advoeatedi by dlc most distinguisbed niem- rthe state theo cnief min1istecs ofthe Crown, and by some-even dignitaries of thie church. - (Signed) J. DILLON, Eider. D. HARWOOD,i 3."KtLNBI' R. HOVERDON ('Deacons. J. DENAIAN. . DrSSENTERS' AARRIACEs.