Oldalképek
PDF
ePub
[ocr errors]

solemn occasions of their lives.

The Lord CHANCELLOR had no objection to repeat and explain the grounds of his doubts as to the situațion of these parties at common law. The Toleration Act exempted from its benefit the deniers of the doctrine of the Trinity. The 9 and 10 William and Mary against blasphemy and profaneness, provided certian punishment against what it called crimes and one of these was stated to be the denial of

any

of the persons of the Trinity to Þe God. He could not conceive that because that Act was repealed, it was not still to be evidence of what was in the acknowledgment and understanding of the Legislature, a crime antecedently punishable, though not to that extent, at common law. Mr. Justice Blackstone so treated it, and spoke of it as an offence which the Legislature found it necessary to repress by severer punishments. The question had been treated in the Courts as one of importance. It had come before himself incidentally in charity cases, and lately it had come before the Court of King's Bench, where one judge was of opinion that it was still an offence, and the other three would not say it was not. There

fore he contended they ought now to be explicit, and to require something more determinate than the phrase used by this Bill, as to persons entertaining scruples as to the doctrine of the Trinity." What did such a phrase mean? Every body might be said to have scruples on such a subject some time or other. But if the phrase meant any thing specific, it was what the Bill seemed cautiously to avoid acknowledging, (as if the parties were aware of their situation, namely, that they came denying the essential doctrines of the Church. He was only contending that they ought not to leave it so. As to the quotation of Locke, he could only hope that when they came to discuss the Catholic question, he should be allowed the same privilege. It had been said, that he objected first to general measures, and then to particular ones. It was enough to say he objected to this, because he was quite sure that they could never pass this Bill, and refuse any other sect who chose to apply. He considered the Bill as the greatest blow that had ever been aimed against the Church. If this Bill did not lead to many others of the same sort from every species of objectors, he would claim little credit for

his power of prophecy; and not the Learned Lord state then, if all sorts of Dissen- so at the time? If these ters were to be let in, he

persons were to

remain defied them to retain their subject to prosecution, why fees.

did he not in common can: The Marquis of LANS- dour let them know their DOWNE said, he must con- situation, and not suffer tend that the Statute which them to be deluded by a repealed the exception of fancied protection, when Unitarians from the bene- the Learned Lord knew all fit of the Toleration Act, the time that it was a deluplaced them in as good si- sion? It had been said, tuation as if that exception why make the Church anhad never been made. cillary to these marriages ? What then was the state For this plain reason, that of Dissenters generally, they legislated for the comwere they not established

mon advantage of the pubin fact, and protected by lic. He had yet to learn that the State? If he found on this was more than a civil the highest authority, that institution, in which every the Toleration Act took member of the community the Dissenters under the

had as much interest as any protection of the State, party before them. Al that would it not be clear that

the Church was called upon these persons were in the to do, was to render the duty same predicament? That

which it performed on all this was the case, he found other occasions, to attend expressly decided by Mr. to civil regulations devised Justice Foster, who, as if for the prevention of clanforeseeing the very objec- destine marriages and for tion, used the strongest due registration. It was no expressions, holding that indignity which they were this toleration was not to offering to the Church, but be treated as a connivance a benefit they were providor exception from penalty, ing for the whole commubut that the removal of the nity, and for the Church penalty took off the idea of itself, in saving it from beoffence, and took the wor- ing made the instrument ship under the protection for violating conscience, of the law. Could it have with no chance of good to been the intention of the itself or any one, with no Legislature to leave the

prospect of bringing disUnitarians exposed to the sidents within its pale, penalties of common law? with no probable end but if they were, why did that of defeating all the kind feelings which it ought to conciliate, and substituting recollections of resentment and violated conscience, as well as dislike towards that Church which most strangely tolerated the dissident in separation from its worship at one time, and at another dragged him into

a compulsive conformity on an occasion when the interests of the community call loudest for sincerity.

The House divided, when there appeared to be, For the second reading,

21,-proxies 14 Against it, 20,--proxies 13 Majority for the Bill, 2.

Extract of a letter from H

dated Oct. 21, 182 1.

one

* * *

[ocr errors]

“I had the pleasure of

perusal and instruction of receiving yours of the 14th

them all ;

and

to Instant with the books

a Bramin, respecyou sent. I am much ob

table and wealthy, whom liged for the two tracts by I have desired to let all Brujumohun Mozoomdar his friends and visitors read which I accept with

and take copies of it, if great satisfaction. Of the

they wish it. This Sermon eight Sermons I have kept will I feel convinced imone for my own household, press the minds of

its and the others I have dis- hearers with a strong, detributed as follows: two sire to know more of the to who I am

sayings of the Redeemer glad to acquaint you not and Mediator. It will do only allows his friends and more good than all the visitors to read them but labours of the Serampore to take copies also, by Missionaries have been which means that Holy

able to effect for so many Sermon will be extensively

years." circulated in these parts.

N. B. A New Edition The

is done by of the Sermon above reto whom I

gave

ferred to (Christ's Sermon a copy some time

ago ; on the Mount) in English to

a Rajpoot; and Bengallee, is about to a Bramin

be put to press, and when respectable and wealthy; printed, copies will be graone to the Havildar and

tuitously supplied to any Sepoys of the guard at- ! gentleman who may have tached to this Factory, to opportunities of distributremain in the Barracks

ing them

among persons one to the Omlah

by whom they are likely to of this Factory to remain be read and understood. in the Cutchery for the -ED.

same

[ocr errors]

one

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

one to *

here ;

[blocks in formation]
[ocr errors]

1

The Marquis of LANSDOWNE moved the order of the day for the House to go

into a Committee on this Bill.

The Bishop of CHESTER rose to oppose the motion. In justice to his own feelings, in justice to the supporters of this measure, he was bound to declare, after giving the subject his most anxious, long, and painful consideration, that his present opinion was the same as that which he had formerly had the honour to state to their Lordships. Again must he contend that the Unitarians had ground, on the score of religious conscience, to object to the marriage ceremony of the Church of England. No Unitarian could conscientiously object to the betrothing clause on account of words which they themselves used on other occasions. mo kery in them to contend that they had any ground to reject those words in the marriage ceremony which were the same as they used in baptism. If any Noble

Lord could shew that the Unitarians had any just grounds on the score of religious conscience, to reject the marriage ceremony, he, for one, should have very different feelings towards them, and would vote in their favour. He admitted fully, however, that the blessing did distinctly recognize, in explicit terms, the doctrine of the Trinity. But was not this the declaration of the minister-not an act in which the party joined ? The Church of England would be wanting to its own dignity and character, were it not to take every proper opportunity to declare and maintain those doctrines it believed to be the true doctrines of Christ. If the framers of our Liturgy had considered all the circumstances under which the Unitarians were now found, they could not have more fairly met the scruples of others, without compromising the dignity and character of the Church, than is now done by the mode in which this doctrine is recognized, without re

no

It was a

quiring any assent from the of the Church of England.

why

to .comply with the established qught not to be called on law and customs of their to abandon her rights and country. They had an ex- privileges. If one stone ample for doing so in the

were taken

away

from the Apostle of the Gentiles, building after another, it and even

in our blessed would at length disappear Lord himself, who, though altogether. He entreated he objected and protested their Lordships not to give against the doctrines and

up

the doctrines and disdiscipline of the Sanhedrim, cipline of the Church, of and the accustomed worship which they were the hereof the Temple, conformed ditary guardians, and unto the institutions of his der which this country had country. We have seen attained her present proud only concession following pre-eminence. The interest concession, and demand of the Church was interrising on demand; and, if woven with the best intethis point be conceded to rests of the State, and he the Unitarians, other con- trusted

their Lordships cessions will be required, would not invade either the and other demands will liberty or privileges of the follow. Our Church was Church. He would theretolerant in principle and fore move that their Lordpractice, but toleration ships should resolve themhad its limits. The pri- selves into a Committee on vilege conceded to

that day three months as all, to worship God accord- an amendment to the Noble ing to their conscience, Marquis's motion. but the Church was not to The Bishop of EXETER be called on to renounce its said, if he thought the proopinions, or to give up its posed measure were a viodoctrines. The Church of lation of the doctrines or England was not one sect privileges of the Church, among others--it

the he would not support it; Established Church of this but feeling that it was not, realm, with rights and pri- feeling that there was no vileges established for a

danger in the concession, long course of years, one and feeling also that the of which was, that the

Church of England would marriage ceremony should be relieved, by ceasing to only be performed in some compel those who did not of the churches or chapels believe in her doctrines to

was

was

« ElőzőTovább »