« ElőzőTovább »
solemn occasions of their fore he contended they lives.
ought now to be explicit, The Lord CHANCELLOR and to require something had no ohjection to repeat more determinate than the and explain the grounds of phrase used by this Bill, his doubts as to the situa- as to persons entertaining țion of these parties at scruples as to the doctrine common law. The Toleration of the Trinity.” What did Act exempted from its be- such a phrase mean? Every nefit the deniers of the body might be said to have doctrine of the Trinity. scruples on such a subject The 9 and 10 William and some time or other. But if Mary against blasphemy the phrase meant any thing and profaneness, provided specific, it was what the certian punishment agan.st Bill seemed cautiously to what it called crimes avoid acknowledging, as and one of these was stated if the parties were aware to be the denial of any of of their situation, namely, the persons of the Trinity to that they came denying the Þe God. He could not con- essential doctrines of the ceive that because that Act Church. He was only conwas repealed, it was not tending that they ought still to be evidence of what not to leave it so. As to was in the acknowledgment the quotation of Locke, he and understanding of the could only hope that when Legislature, a crime ante- they came to discuss the cedently punishable, though Catholic question, he should not to that extent, at com- be allowed the same privimon law. Mr. Justice Black- lege. It had been said, that stone so treated it, and he objected first to general spoke of it as an offence measures, and then to parwhich the Legislature found ticular ones. It was enough it necessary to repress by to say he objected to this, severer punishments. The
because he was quite sure question had been treated
that they could never pass in the Courts as one of im- this Bill, and refuse any portance. It had come be
other sect who chose to apfore himself incidentally in ply. He considered the Bill charity cases, and lately it as the greatest blow that had come before the Court
had ever been aimed against of King's Bench, where the Church. If this Bill one judge was of opinion did not lead to many others that it was still an offence, of the same sort from eveand the other three would ry species of objectors, he not say it was not. There- 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
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. All that would it not be clear that the Church
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 a compulsive conformity to conciliate, and substi- on an occasion when the tuting recollections of re- interests of the community sentment and violated con- call loudest for sincerity. science, as well as dislike The House divided, when towards that Church which there appeared to be, most strangely tolerated the For the second reading, dissident in separation from
21,--proxies 14 its worship at one time, and Against it, 20,--proxies 13 at another dragged him into Majority for the Bill, 2.
Extract of a letter from H
dated Oct. 21, 1824.
“I had the pleasure of perusal and instruction of receiving yours of the 14th
them all ;
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 immy 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
done by of the Sermon above reto whom I
gave ferred to (Christ's Sermon a copy some time ago ; one 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 here; 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.
one to *
The Marquis of LANSDOWNE moved the order of the day for the House to 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 other occasions.
It was a 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
quiring any assent from the parties. He knew not why the Unitarians objected to .comply with the established law and customs of their country. They had an example for doing so in the Apostle of the Gentiles, and even in our blessed Lord himself, who, though he objected and protested against the doctrines and discipline of the Sanhedrim, and the accustomed worship of the Temple, conformed to the institutions of his country. We have seen only concession following concession, and demand rising on demand; and, if this point be conceded to the Unitarians, other concessions will be required, and other demands will follow. Our Church was tolerant in principle and practice, but
but toleration had its limits. The privilege was conceded to all, to worship God according to their conscience, but the Church was not to be called on to renounce its opinions, or to give up its doctrines. The Church of England was not one sect among
others-it Established Church of this realm, with rights and privileges established for a long course of years, one of which
was, that the marriage ceremony should only be performed in some of the churches or chapels
of the Church of England. Unless some strong reasons could be urged for it, she qught not to be called on. to abandon her rights and privileges. If one stone were taken away
from the building after another, it would at length disappear altogether. He entreated their Lordships not to give up
the doctrines and dis, cipline of the Church, of which they were the here: ditary guardians, and under which this country had attained her present proud pre-eminence. The interest of the Church was interwoven with the best interests of the State, and he trusted their Lordships would not invade either the liberty or privileges of the Church. He would therefore move that their Lordships should resolve themselves into a Committee on that day three months as an amendment to the Noble Marquis's motion.
The Bishop of EXETER said, if he thought the proposed measure were a violation of the doctrines or privileges of the Church, he would not support it; but feeling that it was not, feeling that there was no danger in the concession, and feeling also that the Church of England would be relieved, by ceasing to compel those who did not believe in her doctrines to