On this page
-
Text (1)
-
Untitled Article
Note: This text has been automatically extracted via Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software. The text has not been manually corrected and should not be relied on to be an accurate representation of the item.
-
-
Transcript
-
Note: This text has been automatically extracted via Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software. The text has not been manually corrected and should not be relied on to be an accurate representation of the item.
Additionally, when viewing full transcripts, extracted text may not be in the same order as the original document.
Untitled Article
farm , of prayer . The words used by the Unitarians in their cereinouy of baptism were these— " I baptize thee in the name of the Father , Son , and Holy Ghost . " iThey , therefore , could noli j ustly object to their own form of prayer . He also
admitted that the clergyman who performed the ceremony of marriage gave to the patties benediction , * by praying to God the Father , God the Son , and God the Holy Ghost , to bless them . Now , if they did not think they were the better for this , surely they could not feel themselves the worse for it . He defended the
miiiisters of the Church of England from the charge of equivocation in the performauce of this ceremony for the Unitarians . There was no ground whatever for such a charge , for the word equivocation implied saying one thing and meaning another , for the purpose of deception . Now there was no deception here , because the minister knew
beforehand the opinions of the Unitarian , and the Unitarian knew those of the minister , so that neither party was deceiving or deceived . He therefore repelled with indignation the charge brought against the ministers of the Church ; they were neither guilty of equivocation nor pious fraud . He denied that the Unitarians
had any just grounds for saying that their cotiscifences were violated . Occasions were continually occurring when points df doctrine laid down by ministers of the Church , were disapproved of by some individuals , who said that they would not again go > to Church to hear them ; but that was no reason why the Church of
fingland should not lay down the pure doctrines of Christianity . If the minister of the gospel did not propound the true principles of faith iii Christ Jesus , how else was the gainsayer to be converted ? He contended that if this privilege were c £ ded to the Unitarians , it must also be gi'&nted to every other sect and community , however erroneous their opinions
might be . The doctrine of the Unitarians gave , them no right to be looked upon as a favoured sect ; yet this concession would be calculated to give a spread to the opinions of that sect ; although , by denying the divinity of Christ , they laid the axe to the root of the tree of Christianity itself . For these reasons lie moved , as an amendment , that the bill be read a second time that day three months .
The Bishop of Lichfield and Coventry considered the opinions of the Unitarians as utterly destitute of any foundation ; and grossly erroneous as they were , he must believe them to affect their cdncluct ; but still he looked upon their present complaint as founded on fair grou nd ^ , and he conceived the bill entitled ' to their Lordships * snnnoYt , ai bei » g
Untitled Article
calculated to deliver the £ burch of En * gland from the scandalous profanation of a compromise at the altar . He was a general friend to toleration ; although he
did not wish to give any encouragement to those sectaries ; but he did not conceive that the present bill would operate as any encouragement to them . His Lordship conclude ^ by supporting the original motion .
The Lord Chancellor would be very glad if any noble Lord would inform him what he meant by the word " Unitarian : " for if a Unitarian were a person who denied the divinity of Christ , their Lordships , before they could pass this bill , must first pass an act rendering it lawful for him so to do . His Lordship then referred to the Act of William to
shew that the denial of the divinity of our Saviour was declared to be a heinous crime , which subjected the party guilty of it to a severe punishment . The Act of Toleration did not repeal the law as it had stood before ; it only e ^ cepted the parties in some cases from the consequences of those crimes which were
crimes at common law before the passing of that act . No man who should propose to repeal that law , could feel as an Englishman or a Christian : but if it was a crime at common law to deny the divinity of Christ , their Lordships must begin with repealing the common law , arid not with an Act of Parliament iu the teeth of it .
The Jews and the Quakers had marriage ceremonies of their own , aud he should not be sorry to see a bill introduced , declaring their marriages to be valid ; for although they were excepted in Lord Hardwicke ' s Act , yet in a case which had lately come before him , considerable doubts had been raised <* s to the validity or * the Quakers * marriages . He considered the doctrines of the Unitarians as
calculated to work an essential mischief in this country , and he called upon the House not to sanction that which the Judges of Westminster Hall must deny in judgment . The Earl of Liverpool felt great pain
iu differing from his JSToble and Learned Friend on the Woolsack , particularly on such a question as this : but , entertaiuing a strong opinion upon the subject , he should not be discharging his duty if h - did not state the grounds of that op inion . His Noble aud Learned Friend had stated
at some length the principles of the common law as respected this subject , and said , that notwithstanding the Act ot Toleration , the common law was still m force . But the Noble and Learned Lord , towards the conclusion of Uls speech , furnished au argument against fr linse jv for yyhzi did be admiti An under ***** in « that Jews and Ctuakeis might lawfully
Untitled Article
43 ( 5 Intelligence . — -Parliamentary ; Unitarian Marriage Bill .
-
-
Citation
-
Monthly Repository (1806-1838) and Unitarian Chronicle (1832-1833), July 2, 1825, page 436, in the Nineteenth-Century Serials Edition (2008; 2018) ncse.ac.uk/periodicals/mruc/issues/vm2-ncseproduct2538/page/52/
-