Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

riage ceremony, and could have no tendency to procure for us any relief from the Legislature; but that by making a public opposition to, and protest against, the marriage ceremony, in the place where it was performerl, we should. not only acquit our consciences to God, but exhibit our integrity to the world; and that the very inconvenience which the celebration of our marriages would occasion to the clergy themselves, might, by possibility, lay the ground of future relief. And here, perhaps, we may remark, that almost every clergyman who has been called upon to marry any of our members, has expressed his anxious wish to be relieved by law from so painful a duty, and they have generally agreed in the justice of our claims on the consideration of the legislature. Our views, however, and reasons for adopting the course of protesting against the marriage ceremony, are stated at length in an article on this subject, contained in the last number of the Freethinking Christians' Magazine for 1813; and in the month of June, in the following year, the views there stated were, for the first time, carried into effect. The following account of this. proceeding is extracted from our Magazine of 1814:

"The two individuals on whom it devolved to set the example in this case, thought it advisable to acquaint the minister, to whom they intended to apply, with their intention and determination to present a Protest to him against the marriage ceremony: it would leave him at liberty deliberately to act as he thought fit, and themselves to be prepared against the consequences of such action; accordingly the brother, whose name appears affixed to the Protest below, waited upon the minister by whom he intended to be married, and explicitly and frankly informed him of his situation and intention. He was received with politeness: he set forth that he was a Dissenter-a Dissenter from Dissenters-a heretic of the worst class-that however erroneous his opinions might be, he hoped he might have the credit of being sincere in those opinions-that it was that sincerity which induced him to say, that believing, as he did, the church of England to have no more authority from the New Testament than the East India Company, or any chartered or corporate body—that the worship to which it was consecrated was idolatrous that the minister before whom he stood was unsanctioned as a minister of religion by any appointment of Jesusthat on those accounts it was impossible for him silently to join in the marriage ceremony, without a violation of his conscience, unless he did some act which should mark his detestation of the whole system to which he was forced to subscribe-and that, accordingly, it was his intention to present a Protest at the altar against the marriage ceremony. On this the minister positively, and with some warmth, declared he would not marry our friend-that he, in common with thousands of other ministers, was sworn to support the worship and doctrines of the church of England, which were founded in scripture-and that he would not marry any man that should come to the church to act against what the laws of the country haď prescribed.

"It was urged in reply, on the part of our friend, that he did not apply

for any favour, but for a civil right, which he apprehended the minister had no power to deprive him of-that it was his intention to comply with all that the law required-and that he wished to know explicitly, whether he (the minister) seriously imagined he had any discretionary power in the business-whether, in fact, he could refuse; for that if he determined so to do, it was his decided intention to take legal proceedings to obtain what he considered a civil right gauranteed by the Marriage Act. The minister saw clearly the situation in which he was placed; and, though true to church and king, found, that as he could not reason our friend out of his opinions, it might be dangerous to attempt to deprive him of his rights.

"A few weeks subsequent to this interview, when the banns had been regularly published, the party put the following Protest into the hands of the minister at the altar, at the moment he was about to commence the ceremony-the bridegroom observing, "I deliver into your hands this Protest against the Marriage Ceremony."

To Mr. Crosby, commonly called the Rev. Mr. Crosby.

"The undersigned, being Unitarian dissenters, present to you the following Protest against the Marriage Ceremony, to which, according to the law of the land, they are compelled to subscribe; they disclaim all intention of acting disrespectfully, either to the legislature, or to its civil officer before whom they stand: they lament that they are placed in a situation so unnatural, as that even forbearance to what they consider as established error would be a formal recantation of opinions which they received on conviction, and which, they will only renounce on similar grounds. Against the Marriage Ceremony, then, they can but most solemnly Protest:

[ocr errors]

"Because it makes Marriage a religious, instead of a civil, act:Because, as Christians and Protestant Dissenters, it is impossible we can allow of the interference of any human institution with matters which concern our faith and consciences:

[ocr errors]

Because, as knowing nothing of a priesthood in Christianity, the submission to a ceremony performed by a person "in holy orders, or pretended holy orders," is painful and humiliating to our feelings:

[ocr errors]

Because, as servants of Jesus, we worship the ONE Living and true
GOD, his God and our God, his father and our father, and disbelieve
and abominate the doctrine of the Trinity, in whose name the
Marriage Ceremony is performed.

June 10, 1814.

SWILLIAM COATES, (Signed)MARY ANN THOMPSON,

Members of the church of God, known by the name of― "FREETHINKING CHRISTIANS."

No further account of this marriage will be necessary, except to state that a considerable part of the ceremony was omitted by the minister, who, as far as he could do so with safety to himself, appeared to manifest every wish to deal tenderly with the consciences of our friends. The marriage protest delivered in this instance, with some particulars of the case, were sent by us to the Monthly Repository, and inserted by the editor; it was also published in the Examiner Newspaper

and some other prints. At the close of this year, 1814, our Magazine was discontinued, having therefore no longer the opportunity of urging the importance of obtaining relief from the marriage ceremony through that medium, we took an early occasion of attending the Unitarian Fund Annual Dinner, held at the London Tavern, at which, from the circumstance of Unitarians from most parts of the country being assembled, we deemed a favourable opportunity would be presented of introducing this subject. One of our friends accordingly addressed the company at some length, stating the general merits of the question; and, after detailing what we had done to obtain relief, and what the Unitarians had left undone, enforced the necessity of an immediate and persevering endeavour to obtain from the legislature parliamentary relief. It is but justice to the company assembled to say that our friend's address was well received, and that Mr. Frend, the Vice-President, expressed his sense of the importance of the subject, and gave his assurance that the committee would take it into consideration. From this time the subject obtained the general attention of Unitarian dissenters. In the year 1816 various correspondents exhibited their objections to the ceremony, through the medium of the Monthly Repository; it became a theme of general inquiry and discussion, and in the following year the Kent and Sussex Unitarian Association took the step of petitioning parliament for relief. Their petition, signed by nearly 500 names, was presented to the Lords by the Marquis of Lansdown, and to the Commons by Mr. William Smith. These petitions attracted the attention of The Times daily newspaper, which, after offering various reflections little favourable to the object of the petitioners, concluded by dissuading Mr. Smith from persevering in the measure which they attributed to him—of bringing a bill into parliament for the relief of the petitioners. Mr. Smith took occasion to reply, in a letter, to the strictures in the Times; whether this gentleman was influenced by the admonition of the Times-whether he acted on the policy of concealing his real objects, or had not made up his mind as to the propriety of moving for the required relief, does not appear; but to our surprise and disappointment, he stated, in correction of the report of the Times, as to his avowed intention-" Now, whatever may be my opinion, I beg it may be understood "that, on the occasion referred to, acting only as the organ "of others, I merely presented the petition of a number of Unitarians, who conceive themselves to be aggrieved by

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

"the existing law; and that I did not hold out any pledge, "or (to the best of my recollection) even hint a design of "farther prosecuting the businesss." This declaration, from a gentleman who was understood to speak the sentiments of the Unitarian body, was little calculated to stimulate our hopes in favour of any speedy relief from the legislature; and from this time, 1817, to 1819, nothing of a public nature appears to have been done by the Unitarians to further the measure in question. The members of our church continuing, however, to enter into marriage, and to deliver protests against the ceremony, these protests, besides being published in other prints, were regularly sent by us to the Monthly Repository, and constitute the only communications, upon this important subject, which appeared in that work during the period of time above alluded to. At the commencement of the year 1819, a meeting of Unitarians was held at the London Tavern, to consider the propriety of forming an association for the protection of the "civil rights of Unita"rians;" when the importance of the subject we had for so long a time so unsuccessfully attempted to urge on the leaders of the Unitarian body, was then, for the first time, we believe, publicly recognized by Mr. Robert Aspland, the conductor of the Monthly Repository. This gentleman, in an able and argumentative speech, the purport of which it gave us great pleasure to read proceeded, after touching on a great variety of topics, to say—

"There was one subject to which it was difficult to allude, but on which much had been of late said, and of which therefore some notice must be taken. Our adversaries might be jocular upon it, but to us it was a serious grievance. He alluded to the necessity of passing to the marriage state through Trinitarian ordinances. It appeared that the legislature by passing the late bill meant effectually to protect us; if they did not, the act was a delusion and a snare; but if that was their intention, all must see that it was not accomplished, while Unitarians were obliged, against their principles and consciences, to submit to Athanasian worship. As a dissenter, on the broadest ground, he should object to such a compulsive conformity, but as Unitarians, they were compelled, in this instance, to violate their dearest opinions, and strongest religious feelings. The moral responsibility rested, no doubt, on the legislature which occasioned the offence, but surely they ought to attempt to throw off the burden."

Immediately on the formation of the above assosiation a letter, signed "A Constant Reader," and from the pen of one of our members, was forwarded to the Repository, containing various questions on the marriage ceremony; and in a postscript, with the view of fastening this important matter on the newly-formed association, it was added-"I have just learned by the public prints, that a meeting has been

[ocr errors]

46

66

"held for the establishment of an association for the pro"tection of the civil rights of Unitarians. It is impossible "that the committee appointed to carry into effect the objects "of the association, can be in any way employed in a manner more consistent with the principles of their "appointment, than in a serious effort to obtain legislative "relief to the Unitarian dissenter in the instance of the marriage ceremony."-Monthly Repository, vol. 14, p. 160. An universal interest was now excited, in favour of this subject, throughout the Unitarian public, by means of this new society; and, desirous of promoting, by all the means in our power, the general object, it had been discussed among us whether we were not called upon to send deputies from our church to act with the association, in common with the deputies of Unitarian congregations generally. Some objections, upon principle, having, however, been taken to this course of proceeding, by one of our country branches, it was abandoned; but it was agreed to act concurrently with the Unitarian association, in promotion of the general object, it being concluded by us that no difference with the Unitarians upon other subjects, however important, ought to prevent us from acting in accordance with them, when they were so laudably engaged in obtaining an important civil right, and when we could view them in the broad character of fellow-citizens. Accordingly, when in this year petitions for relief were forwarded from the Unitarians in various parts of England, similar petitions were also sent to parliament from our own connexion in London, and from the churches associated with us in the country; we were also successful in obtaining promises of support from several members of the House of Commons, on whom we waited, as well as from a distinguished peer and great political leader of the upper House. Soon after the presentation of these petitions, Mr. Smith brought in a bill for the relief of Unitarian dissenters from so much of the marriage ceremony as was contrary to their religious belief. The discussion on the commitment of this bill came on in the House of Commons 1st July, 1819. It was, upon the whole, favourably received by the House; Lord Castlereagh is reported to have "urged "the propriety of not proceeding with the bill farther in the present session. He wished not to express any decided opinion as to the measure, but it was to be remarked that "it only gave relief to one class of persons, who objected "to the present marriage ceremony-the protestant dis"scnters and not to the catholics-who also objected to

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
« AnteriorContinuar »