appellation of "works of righteousness," many of that vilified sect, to whose moral respectability the Presbyter thus bears his unsuspected testimony:

"With several Socinians I have the honour to be acquainted; to their moral worth, the integrity of their conduct, and the respectability of their character, I am willing to bear testimony; but, at the same time, I am obliged, with sorrow of heart, to confess, that I can only regard them in the light of virtuous Heathens. By a Heathen I mean one who, although he may be distinguished from the Atheist by worshiping a God, is equally distinguished from the Christian by denying the true God.”—Pp. 4, 5.

But our principal concern is with the argument of the Presbyter in favour of some relief to Unitarians (as they "must be permitted" still to call themselves until some more correctly discriminating appellation shall be pointed out) from the operation of the present Marriage Law, and with the plan suggested by him. As to the first, he unqualifiedly admits that they are grieved:

"It may be expedient for a Government-nay, it is sometimes incumbent upon it-to prohibit the promulgation of doctrines opposed to the religion established; but it becomes intolerance and persecution to compel men to alore with their lips a Being whom in their hearts they deny. The object of such a proceeding I cannot understand,—of the unlawfulness of it I am fully convinced."

He further contends, that the grievance is equally oppressive and equally afflictive to himself and his clerical brethren; he discovers a clear repugnancy between his duty as a servant of the State, and his obedience to the laws of her ally the Church; and hesitates not to declare, that if any such blasphemous Protest were presented to him as that which we have lately read of in the newspapers, no power on earth, or under the earth, would induce him to perform the service for the protesting parties; or, as far as his influence might extend,, to permit it to be performed by another.-P. 7.

In discussing the mode of remedying the mutual grievance of the "Christian Priest" and the idolatrous Socinian, the Presbyter glances at the plans which have been already proposed with this view, but betrays, we are sorry to say, no little want of information upon the points which it most concerned him to know. To describe the first Bill introduced by the Unitarians as proposing a "revision of the Marriage Service, and an alteration of it so as to accommodate it to the scruples of the Socinians;" as calling upon a Christan clergyman" not only to deny his Saviour, by mutilating or omitting the form of adoration due to him; not only to compromise his duty to Almighty God on the arbitrary bidding of those who exult in their denial of him, but to become a party to a religious ceremonial which, in his heart, he believes to be little better than a Pagan rite," as a profanation of the Christian temple, by the erection of the image of Baal, (see p. 8,)—is to use language equally harsh and inconsiderate, when it is recollected that this simple measure, in every other respect unobjectionable, merely adopted a distinction, which our author clearly admits and contends for, between the civil and religious celebration of marriage, and proposed to omit altogether the directly devotional part of the Church Service, retaining the solemn and expressive forms of matrimonial contract. As to the imperative nature of the enactment, it seemed difficult to effectuate the relief without investing the Unitarians with a legal right to it; but even this offence might perhaps have been removed, if the minister had been merely authorized to comply

with the wishes of the parties, and the Episcopal Bench had undertaken to add the weight of their recommendation to the clergy under their respective jurisdictions; and it might have been time enough to ask for the compulsory provision, or for some other mode of relief, if experience had demonstrated that the grievance was not practically removed by the tolerance of the great bulk of the national clergy. It is true that the Bill reduced the functions of the minister quoad hoc to those of a civil magistrate or registrar: but it is not denied that, for many purposes, he is the only civil functionary provided by the law; nor is it esteemed as derogatory from his spiritural character, voluntarily to undertake the duties of a Justice of the Peace, Commissioner of Taxes, or Deputy Lieutenant : and let it be recollected, that the principal inducements for introducing the Bill in question, were, 1st, the great desirableness, in a civil point of view, that the circumstances attendant upon the Marriage Ceremony should be altered as little as might be ; and, 2dly, the impossibility of so accommodating the devotional parts of the established ritual to the religious notions of Unitarians, as to avoid the charge, now most unjustly preferred, of mulitating the forms of adoration to the God of Trinitarians.

We must allow the Presbyter to state the nature and design and consequences of the other measure proposed for the relief of Unitarian Dissenters in his own words:

"Another measure has been suggested, in which it is proposed to permit Dissenters to marry in their own conventicles, and to recognize in law the validity of such marriages. But such a measure as this, my Lord, is directly opposed to the second of those two principles, by which I assumed, in limine, that both your Lordship and myself were to be guided, namely, the support of the dignity and privileges of the Establishment. It stands to reason that, if we have an Establishment, (whatever may be the religion established,) it ought to have not only the protection of Government, (for this should be equally extended to all the tolerated sects,) but its exclusive countenance and favour. Privileges are for the Establishment, connivance merely for the sectarians.

"The Church is the general rule of the constitution-the Dissenting sects are exceptions to it. The clergy of the Establishment have, in consequence, an ostensible public character allotted to them; the teachers in the conventicles, being regarded by church and by law as nothing more than laymen, have none. To obtain this, and to do away the distinction drawn by the Constitution, appears to be among the most influential of the motives which have really awakened the Socinians to a sense of a grievance to which they had long silently submitted. But, if the Establishment is to be supported, it is certainly incumbent upon our Legislators to resist the innovation; for here the civil Government possesses the full power of defining the line of separation between the established and a tolerated religion. If schism be a sin, (as by the doctrine of the Church it undoubtedly is,) it most assuredly becomes the duty of that State to which the Church is allied, while it tolerates schismatics, to make the line of distinction between them and the Establishment as clear and precise as possible, in order to prevent the uneducated and ignorant from being led astray, and becoming the victims of heresy. Not only your Lordship, but all the better-educated members of our communion, who, like your Lordship, have attended to the duties and doctrines of the Christian religion, are aware that by schism we mean the desertion of an episcopal church, or the acting in opposition to its laws, when they do not inculcate doctrines which are contrary to Scripture. But this the unlettered cannot, and the self-willed will not, understand. Their reason for being members of the Church is, too often, merely because it is established by law; but, although

6

these may be weaker brethren, we are not to despise them; we are, on the contrary, to remove the stumbling-block which our greater knowledge may perceive in their way. If on some we are to have compassion, making a difference,' others we are to save with fear, pulling them out of the fire.' But if these persons see the Meeting-house enjoying the very same privileges as the Church, they will not only be confounded into infidelity, as even now is too frequently the case; but every landmark erected by our ancestors to keep them in the right course will be removed: we shall thus allure them to schism, instead of restraining them by all lawful means.

"It is at this very point that the measure now under consideration aims. It is to place the clergyman and the Dissenting teacher-the church and the conventicle on precisely the same footing that these persevering efforts are made. Conscience affords the plea, but ambition inspires the zeal."-Pp. 10 -12.

We think we discern the marks of genuine apprehension in the passage above quoted; but fear is very apt to fabricate as well as magnify its objects, and not unfrequently betrays its subjects into gross and palpable injustice. One would be led to suppose, that by the alarming measure here adverted to, the whole body of Dissenting Ministers were at once to be invested with a definite and recognized character, instead of that comparatively small part of the body which is attached to a sect frequently represented as alike contemptible in numbers and in knowledge. But a slight glance at the history of this measure will convict our Presbyter of a hasty and injurious aspersion of the motives which prompted an application to Parliament in a new form. Indeed, his own statement of the nature of the first measure at once acquits the Unitarians and their "teachers" of all the sinister and insidious motives bere imputed to them; and, however it may surpass the belief of the Presbyter, we can venture to assure him, that the great recommendation of the first Bill to its promoters, consisted in its avoiding all necessity for recognizing Dissenting Ministers as officers of the State. Whilst it was regarded as desirable and probable that parties taking advantage of the Act would give to their contract the additional solemnity of a devotional service, the idea of making such solemnity legally imperative was deprecated, precisely because the Dissenting Minister, being neither in "holy orders," nor "pretending to holy orders," must, in that case, be brought into competition with the Established Clergy. The Bill was introduced originally in the latter part of the Session of 1819, and was framed so as to include Dissenters of every description; but, after being read a first and second time, it was, upon the suggestion of Lord Castlereagh, deferred until another Session.

The death of the late King, and the absorbing interest of certain discussions which speedily followed that event, sufficiently account for the lapse of the year 1820 without any attempt to re-introduce the measure; and it was not until after the rejection of the Catholic Emancipation Bill, in the year 1821, that the subject was again brought before the House of Commons, by Mr. Smith, who, upon an objection from Dr. Phillimore, that the Bill formerly proposed would do away with marriage as a religious ceremony, observed, that the petitioners were not wedded to any particular mode of relief, and had suggested that mode as producing less change than any other in the existing system. On the 17th April, 1822, Mr. Smith obtained leave to bring in the Bill; but the highest authorities of the Church having been consulted, it was discovered, that though the right to relief was pretty generally conceded, the mode of affording it was stronly objected to, as involving an alteration of the Liturgy.

About the same period, a paper of considerable talent appeared in the

Christian Remembrancer, (for May,) the general tendency and spirit of which went to the denial of the existence of any grievance, but which concluded by shewing how the wishes of the Dissenters might be reconciled with the spirit of the Marriage Law. "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." If we might be allowed a conjecture as to the author of this paper, we should name the most zealous opponent of the Unitarian claims upon the Episcopal Bench; and the Presbyter has probably to thank a Prelate of his own Church for the suggestion of a plan which he denounces as destructive of the dignity and privileges of the clergy, and the offspring of insidious ambition amongst Dissenting teachers. Certain it is, that the Unitarian Dissenters were indebted to a Civilian of considerable eminence, whose attachment to the Establishment is unsuspected, and who, as conductor of a morning paper, had publicly discussed and conceded the existence of the grievance complained of, for the sketch of a Bill which, with some few modifications, was presented to the House of Commons towards the close of the Session of 1822, and was necessarily postponed, after being read a second time and printed. In this Bill, however, great care was employed not to recognize an order of ministers for the solemnization of marriages in the places of worship which were to be registered for the purpose; but when the marriage had been celebrated, under sanction of a previous license or certificate of banns, the parties married and two witnesses were to attend the parochial minister or his deputy, and sign a certificate of the marriage in the register book, with a slight alteration of the form. All the civil precautions as to publicity were retained; the clergy of the Establishment were relieved from the performance of any thing approaching to a religious ceremony; whilst the necessity of registration secured to them their usual emoluments; and a religious celebration of the marriage was, in a great degree, secured, without any express recognition by the State of any new class of functionaries. The proceedings upon the general Marriage Law materially and necessarily impeded the prosecution of the particular measure; but the question of relieving the Roman Catholic as well as Protestant Dissenters from an enforced submission to the ritual of the Church, having been seriously entertained by the Committee upon the general law in the House of Lords, considerable hopes were indulged, that some broad and liberal plan of relief would have suggested itself. The Committee explained the grounds of their omitting to recommend specific provisions in the following paragraph:

"The Committee think it not proper entirely to omit that their attention has been called to many other topics connected with the general subject of Marriage, and that they have been laboriously employed in considering them, particularly the cases of Roman Catholic Marriages and those of other Dissenters, especially Unitarians, which latter have been brought under their consideration in numerous petitions referred to them by the House; but after inquiry and discussion they have thought it more advisable, upon the whole, not to recommend that specific provisions respecting them should be included in the proposed Bill; the cases of the various denominations of Dissenters being extremely diversified in their various circumstances, and ap

* See Mon. Repos. Vol. XVII. p. 354.

pearing to require a diversity of provisions much more proper to be suggested by communications of their own to the Legislature."

In conformity with this suggestion no time was lost in presenting to the Upper House the Bill dropped in the Commons at the close of the preceding Session, with such alterations as were necessary to constitute it a measure of relief to Dissenters of all classes. The discussion on the second reading was very interesting. Even the Lord Chancellor conceded that some descriptions of Dissenters had just claims to relief, and promised his assistance to the noble mover in maturing some plan of relief in the next Session. Lord Liverpool, deeming the arguments for relief unanswerable, suggested the propriety of a short comprehensive service for those who objected to the present one, and the Bishop of Worcester judiciously remarked that an abridgment of the service ought not to be deemed an alteration. The Archbishop of Canterbury and many other Lords expressed their intention to confine relief to the Unitarians, and the debate terminated by an equal division of the members present for and against the second reading, but with a majority of six proxies against it. On the 11th of March, 1824, Lord Lansdowne introduced the Bill, narrowed to a measure for the relief of Unitarians, and after an animated debate on the 29th of that month, distinguished not less by the frank and liberal admissions of the Premier, the Archbishop of Canterbury, and other Bishops and Lords in favour of the Unitarians, than by the Lord Chancellor's utter obliviscence of his pledge of assistance given in the preceding session, the second reading of the Bill was carried by a majority of two. In the mean time, the sentiments of the Episcopal Bench had been consulted as to the details of the Bill, and a variety of clauses suggested in that quarter were prepared and intended for insertion in the Bill when committed, although many of them appeared to be uncalled for by any civil or religious necessity, and were liable to the objection of conferring upon the Dissenting minister an official character, in order to affect him with the civil penalties attaching to the Established clergy. A zeal for the Church transcending that of the Prime Minister and of the bench of Bishops was, however, organizing an opposition even to the further discussion of the subject: and in defiance of the general admission in 1823, that the Unitarians were labouring under a grievance, (the Bill then before the House being objectionable as too general,) a jesuitical attempt was now made to stigmatize them as religious outlaws, and therefore less entitled to relief than any others. Lord Liverpool's indignant reprobation of this quibbling will not be readily forgotten; but the Bill was thrown out by a large majority upon an undefined principle of opposition, which would have been equally exerted whatever had been the plan proposed, and which even the Presbyter sanctions us in stigmatizing as morally unlawful and essentially intolerant.

The subsequent history of the Bill it is not necessary to dwell upon; it was presented to the House of Commons early in the session of 1825, and received the most liberal attention from the Secretary for the Home Department. Upon suggestions, principally emanating from the highest ecclesiastical authorities, clauses were reluctantly added for the registration of Unitarian places of worship and ministers for the purposes of the Act, and ultimately, the registration itself was to be removed from the shoulders of the parochial minister, leaving him little except the onus of receiving his fees. The Bill, thus loaded with precautionary clauses, passed the Commons without any opposition deserving notice; but in vain had the petitioners sought to conciliate support, or at least neutrality, by adopting all the sug