they came to your bar with a petition; and it is fair to infer, that they would never have petitioned at all, if they had succeeded in their attempt to set the legislature at defiance. It should be observed, however, that the Unitarians are not responsible for the conduct of Fearon. I am not certain that he ever professed himself a member of their sect. He now calls himself a Free-Thinking Christian, which is a roundabout name for an unbeliever. The present outcry against the Marriage-Act originated with this man. But it comes before the House of Commons in a less questionable shape, introduced to their notice by a respectable member, and preceded by petitions from every corner of the kingdom. To the former circumstance I am willing to attribute all the importance that it can claim. It is the only favourable feature which I can discover in the case, and any encouragement which the Bill may unhappily receive, will be owing to its author rather than to its merits. The latter, I certainly consider as of very little consequence; for since the day on which the secret of simultaneous petitioning was first discovered by the Dissenters, there is no question, however trivial, on which parchment is not put into requisition, and Parliament duly acquainted with the grievances of his Majesty's subjects. A bustling London secretary sends a circular to his friends in the country, and back comes the humble petition and prayer by return of post. Whether the measure in contemplation be great or small, a tithe-bill or a turnpike-bill, a school-bill or a marriage-bill, the popular voice is invariably declared with the same sincerity and dispatch. But to come a little closer to the grievance and the remedy. The first is, that the words "in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost," occur twice in the course of the Marriage Service, and Unitarians, disbelieving the doctrine of the Trinity, scruple to hear or to repeat the sentence. Now the words, even by the confession of Unitarians, are the words of Scripture. Their improved version of the New Testament admits the authenticity of the passage, and contents itself with saying Spirit instead of Ghost, that is, with substituting a modern term in the place of an old one. And what is still more to the purpose, these words, which were spoken by our Saviour when he commissioned his Apostles to baptize, are retained as a part of the Baptismal Service in Belsham's Unitarian Prayer Book, and are used frequently, if not universally, by the members of his congregation. I must think, there fore, that the consciences for which we are now required to legislate, are not only tender but sore. their own method of explaining the words Unitarians have them in the solemn rite of Baptism; and in question. They do not hesitate to use it is difficult to understand why so much stress should be laid upon their recurrence in the Marriage Service. If in the latter they teach, imply and assume the sublime and mysterious doctrine of a Trinity in Unity, as I conceive they certainly do, they must teach, imply and assume the Scripture-in neither of which have the same in the Baptismal Service and in your Petitioners ever been able to discover them. and Dillon, and others of a similar dispoI know that Messrs. Fearon sition, call our ceremony blasphemy, and our altars idolatrous. And I also know that such declarations are punishable, and should be punished. For though the Trinity Bill be repealed, yet are the Scriptures still protected; and these scurrilipointedly as against the Church. Featies are directed against the Bible as ron's case may possibly be considered peculiar; inasmuch as he calls himself a tains no more respect for the Scripture Free-thinker and may say that he enterthan the bona fide Unitarian entertains for the Trinity. How then will you deal with petitioners of this description ? Will you abrogate that maxim of the Common Law, which declares Christianity to be part and parcel of the law infidelity as an exemption from your staof England; and allow a man to plead line? The Unitarian rejects the express tutes? If not, where will you draw the words of Revelation; or rather he uses them at the font, and is shocked to hear them at the altar. a reasonable scruple? I submit very Is this a religious or confidently that it is not. ought not to quarrel with the words of A Christian the Bible. They may be injudiciously selected or unnecessarily employed; but blasphemous they cannot be; and it is no grievance or hardship to be commanded to listen to them and repeat them, unless it be a grievance and a hardship to be considered and treated as a Christian. tural service, and if, under such circumOur Marriage Service is strictly a Scripstances, the tenderness of the Unitarian conscience is to be received as a sufficient excuse for the rejection of the ceremony, subdivision of religionists has a right to it is evident that every other sect and avail itself of the same plea. Churchmen may be found, who object to Even parts of this and many other solemnities. And if they were to tell you that their consciences revolted at this or that parti า "The Christian Remembrancer" on the Unitarian Marriage-Bill. 357 cular prayer, that they could not sincerely pray for a family of children, or that they do not consider Rebeccah as au quexceptionable pattern of conjugal fidelity, (seeing she deceived her husband upon a very important occasion,) if these or similar difficulties were made matters of conscience, what answer can you return, but that such consciences are erroneous, and that the legislature is not bound to consult them? To every other answer there would be a ready reply, and it would come at last to this :-that there should be no positive law upon this important subject, but that every couple should be linked together in matrimony, how, when, and where they pleased. But it will be said that a much simpler remedy has been devised by this Bill; and having shewn the real nature of the grievance by which it has been produced, I will proceed to consider the anode of cure which it suggests. In the first place, then, we should remark the great difference which exists between the arguments and the enactments of the gentleman who has introduced this Bill. He dates his troubles from the 26th of George II. contending that in the interval which elapsed between the passing of the Toleration-Act and the Marriage-Act, Unitarians might marry as seemed good in their own eyes. The obvious and very simple remedy to which such reasoning leads, would be to repeal so much of the Marriage-Act as relates to Dissenters from the Church, and to leave such persons as they were before their grievances commenced. If they are certain, as they pretend to be, that they could have solemnized lawful matrimony out of the Church before the Act of the 26th of George II., why do not they petition to be restored to that envied and advantageous situation? They admit that their forefathers did not remonstrate against the Marriage-Act; which is a pretty plain proof that their forefathers were married in the Church. For if they had been accustomed to soJemnize marriage in their meeting-houses, the alteration would never have been submitted to in silence. But the present generation have discovered that their forefathers were in the wrong; that they ought to have been, and might have been coupled together in their conventicles and that it is the Marriage-Act, and nothing but the Marriage Act, which gives them so much trouble. If so, they should propose a general exemption from its enactments; and the present Bill is enough to satisfy us that they dare not trust their own arguments, or do not understand their own grievances. In the second place, the proposal to omit certain passages in the Marriage Ceremony, although it is smoothed over in rounded periods as a slight innovation, is sufficient not merely to degrade and disgrace, but to destroy the Church of England. Her Book of Common Prayer, her Rites and Ceremonies, and Articles, are her own, not yours. They were drawn up in her Convocations under the authority of her Bishops, and proceeded from spiritual, not from temporal authority. Parliament adopted them and gave them the support of the civil power; and of course the same Parliament night have rejected, or may now repeal them.❤ But the object of the present Bill is to alter the rites of the Church, without giving her a voice on the occasion. There is no saying what Parliament, in its legislative omnipotence, may not do. But you will overset every precedent in existence, you will violate the spirit and principles of the constitution, if you pretend to turn this House into a synod or council, and waste your time in what you do not understand, the discussion and the formation of Creeds, and Rites, and Rubrics. The king, as head of the Church, may appoint commissioners to take the subject into consideration. The Convocation may re-assume its ancient functions. But, until the Convocation has agreed to the proposed amendments, Parliamentary interference is tyranny and usurpation. The Church of England has been reproached, by its various adversaries, with being an Act-of-Parliament Church. The Papist has done this in his zeal for the power of the Pope; and the Puritan, in his affected attachment to the privileges of the people, has imitated the example. But up to this hour the imputation is scandalous and false. I trust you will not entertain a Bill by which the opprobrious epithet would be justified and confirmed. And if you do entertain it, consider the consequences of such a step. As I said before, with respect to the scruples of an ill-informed conscience, where will you stop? Have we not innumerable sub-divisions of fanaticism and folly, of vice and unbelief; and may we not be told by the advocates of each, that some little modification of a Rite, or a Ceremony, would remove their scruples and promote their welfare? Give a Clergyman your commands to omit all the Collects and all the Creeds, the Litanies and the Graces, the Prayers and the Praises of The repeal of the Act of Uniformity would not be so violent a measure as that which has been introduced by Mr. Smith as Churchmen would then be left at liberty to use their own forms. Mr. Smith proposes to forbid them. the Church, and our Socinians will be enabled to join regularly in the established worship, and be saved the expense of supporting teachers of their own. Let a Baptist have the privilege of walking into a Vestry, and saying, "Baptize my child, passing over all the ceremony except the entry in your register," and he will obtain the benefit of a more secure and public record of the birth and legitimacy of his offspring. In the same spirit you may go through every page of the Ritual; and alter or add, omit or modify, according to the infinite caprices of mankind; till Jews, Turks, Heretics and Infidels, feel an equal delight in the dogmas, and take an equal share in the worship, of your truly Catholic communion. If Parliament cousents to alter the Prayer Book for one scruple, it ought to alter it for every scruple-and this Bill, which aspires to the character of a liberal measure, is an act of maimed and imperfect justice, unworthy of the support of its friends, unworthy of the equity and impartiality of the House of Commons, upsetting ancient landmarks, irritating ancient and holy feelings, mixing profane and sacred in one undistinguishable mass, all for the purpose of giving a very little relief to a very little scruple of a very little portion of his Majesty's subjects. If the Unitarian Dissenters are desirous not of trampling upon the Church, but of marrying after their own fashion, and the House should be disposed to indulge them in this fancy, I have no objection to consider any plan which they may sug gest. They have, I admit, one strong plea; viz. that similar indulgence has been already shewn to the Quaker and the Jew. Parliament was satisfied when it passed the Marriage-Act, that claudestine marriages would not be encou raged by excepting these small and very peculiar bodies of people from the general operation of the law; and the boon which they earnestly sought was granted. Let the Dissenters come forward en masse, and petition for a similar exemption; and if they can shew that such a measure will not lead to the very inconvenience which the Marriage-Act was designed to remove, they will have a fair claim to our attention. Do not deal with the question, as if it were to be determined by the pertinacity of its advocates; do not shew the greatest favour to those who evidently deserve the least; do not pretend to in terfere with the Rites and Ceremonies of the Church. But call upon the Dissenters to accommodate their wishes to the spirit of your marriage laws; and then inquire whether those wishes are reasonable and can be complied with. That I may not be accused of recommending impossibilities, I will shew how This the important objects just alluded to may be reconciled. Let the Banns of marriage between Dissenters be published in their parish-church, let a certificate of such publication be given by the minister, let the parties be married, on the strength of such certificate, by their own teacher, and let them bring a certificate of their marriage to the parish-register. would provide against clandestine marriages, and would give sufficient facility of recording and proving them. Dissenters would not complain of being deprived of the privilege of marrying by licence; since licences proceed from Episcopal authority, which they do not admit or respect. I am not aware of any material objection to this plan: of its infinite superiority to that which is now before the House, I cannot think that one individual will doubt. I throw it out for the consideration of those whom it more particularly concerns; confident that we should not be justified in granting more, and that the petitioners themselves cannot expect us to require less. But at the same time, it is better that things should remain as they are. I need not recapitulate my arguments in order to shew the merits of this opinion; but the principle upon which it rests is incontrovertible. The present outcry against the Marriage-Act arises from a groundless scruple. If that scruple is not attended to, it will gradually be forgotten, and the voice that issues from it will be heard no more. Experience is in favour of this view of the question. The very Rite now complained of by Unitarians, was once the bitter grievance of Presbyterian and Puritan. While some persons were intent upon beheading the king, and establishing the covenant, and some dealt in a smaller way—revolted against the surplice, protested against black puddings, and rejected the Sign of the Cross, and clothes made of linseywolsey "Others were for abolishing That tool of matrimony, a ring, groom Is marry'd only to a thumb." These follies have had their day; the legislature stood firm; common sense came to its assistance; and the descendants of those very men who are de scribed by our great satirist, retain their peculiar views of the Christian dispensation, while their consciences are too seared to flinch at "Cross or king, or wedding ring." The substantial and important differences between Churchman and Dissenter, remain. But there was nothing on which the latter was once so scrupulous as forms; and he has Gleanings. now adopted, of his own accord, the very identical usages which he forsook the Church for imposing. It will be the same with a newer and not less dangerous sect. The next generation will perceive that conscience cannot call upon them to quarrel with the words of the Bible-and when they hear from those who are learned in the Journals of Parliament, that a Bill was introduced into the House of Commons, in 1822, for the purpose of compelling a Clergyman to curtail the rites of his Church, they will say that the Unitarians of such early times had more zeal than discretion, and strained at a guat while they swallowed a camel. GLEANINGS; OR, SELECTIONS AND REFLECTIONS MADE IN A COURSE OF GENERAL READING. No. CCCLXXXVII. 359 He will perceive that at the moment when a multitude of particular solutions, and of insulated facts, begin to distract the attention and to overcharge the memory, the former gradually lose themselves in one general method, and the latter unite in one general law; and that these generalizations, continually succeeding one to another, like the successive multiplications of a number by itself, have no other limit than that infinity which the human faculties are unable to comprehend. No. CCCLXXXVIII. Osorius on the Persecution of the Jews in Portugal. Jerome Osorius, Bishop of Sylves, in his History of Emanuel, King of Portugal, speaks of that King's cruel Progressive Improvement of Man- persecution of the Jews in the follow kind. To such of my readers (says Condorcet) as may be slow in admitting the possibility of this progressive improvement in the human race, allow me to state, as an example, the history of that science in which the advances of discovery are the most certain, and in which they may be measured with the greatest precision. Those elementary truths of geometry and of astronomy, which in India and Egypt formed an occult science, upon which an ambitious priesthood founded its influence, were become, in the times of Archimedes and Hipparchus, the subjects of common education in the public schools of Greece. In the last century, a few years of study were sufficient for comprehending all that Archimedes and Hipparchus knew; and,. at present, two years employed under an able teacher, carry the student beyond those conclusions which limited the inquiries of Leibnitz and of Newton. Let any person reflect on these facts: let him follow the immense chain which connects the inquiries of Euler with those of a priest of Memphis; let him observe at each epoch how genius outstrips the present age, and how it is overtaken by mediocrity in the next; he will perceive that nature has furnished us with the means of abridging and facilitating our intellectual labour, and that there is no reason for apprehending that such simplifications can ever have an end. ing generous and exalted language, particularly remarkable from a Portuguese Bishop: "Fuit quidem hoc nec ex lege nec ex religione factum. Quid enim? Tu rebelles animos nulla que ad id suscepta religione constrictos, adigas ad credendum ea, quæ summa contentione aspernantur et respuunt? Idque tibi assumas, ut libertatem voluntatis impedias, et vincula mentibus effrænatis injicias? At id neque fieri potest, neque Christi sanctissimum numen approbat. Voluntarium enim sacrificium, non vi et malo coactum ab hominibus expetit, neque vim mentibus inferri sed voluntates ad studium veræ religionis allici et invitari jubet. Postremo quis non videt ita religionem per religionis simulationem indignissime violari?”— "This was neither lawful nor religious. Dost thou compel men hostile to Christianity to believe those things which they most vehemently reject? Do you assume to yourself the right of hindering the freedom of the will, and casting chains upon minds which are free from bonds? But that is not possible, nor does the most holy divinity of Christ approve it. He seeks a voluntary sacrifice, not one forced from men by violence, nor does he command us to do violence to the minds of others, but to attract and invite their will to the study and love of true religion. Who does not see that by persecution, religion, through the pretence of religion, suffers the most unworthy violence?" REVIEW. "Still pleased to praise, yet not afraid to blame.”—Pope. F all the poets of the present day to the composition of Sonnets, and though our admiration of his writings is of the warmest and most enthusiastic character, we think he has had little success in that particular form of poetry which he has so frequently chosen. The Sonnet should be the develop ment of a single thought-it may be adorned with other associations, but they should all bear upon the one emotion which it is designed to convey or to illustrate. That thought should be conducted onwards gently and eloquently, till it bursts in all its splendour at the close. "The Sonnet," says the Spanish proverb, "should be opened with a key of silver and be shut with a key of gold." Wordsworth-who, touched by an habitual sense of beauty and melody, seldom fails to communicate their influence to the expression of his thoughts and feelings too eager and enthusiastic to follow the gradual workings of the mind, usually breaks forth in the strength and impetuosity of his genius, and becomes exhausted in the first fervour of his song. The character of Wordsworth's genius is such as to give a charm to whatever he touches; to "the vast and the minute"-"the meanest flower that lives," as well as the mightiest orb that rolls. He is the true alchemist, the discoverer of that genuine stone of philosophy which turns all things into gold-extracts good out of evil-wisdom out of ignorance strength out of weakness. Every soil becomes fertile under his husbandry. His spirit can wake the rose in the wilderness, and call forth the fresh waters from the barren rock. To a mind less poetic than Wordsworth's, the contemplation of the the interests of the lowly. History, prostituted to the service of those alone who could purchase its servility, has been but too often the blazoner and the burnisher of triumphant attrocity; her pages have been lent to kings and courtiers, to conquerors and tyrants, while she has generally crushed with her anathema the uprising of heroic poverty against oppression, or passed over with silent scorn the great mass of suffering man. Not in what she has recorded, but in what she has neglected to record, must we look for virtue. She is not to be trusted when she praises, and still less when she condemns. The peoplethe many-have as yet found no advocate in the chronicles of departed days. When shall some virtuous, some generous philosopher arise, strong in eloquence and bold in patriotism, to rescue from the ruins of servile and despotic ages, the heroes and the martyrs of truth and freedom, buried till now amidst the darkness and the desolation of tyranny? O yes! the friends of liberty have an ancestry of which they too may be proud-in every struggle, though unsuccessful— in every resistance, though untriumphing-in every word and deed of selfsacrifice is the spirit of their forefathers. But whither are we tending? We meant only to say, that the events connected with religious changes are amongst the most interesting monuments of other times. The wild, awful, but all-poetic associations connected with Druidical rites; the splendour of the Pantheon of Roman conquerors; the Teutonic mythology; the strange introduction of his Christianity, and its tortuous march, as if |