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
Marriage Act , and their validity , therefore , at this moment , ( excepted as they are from the provisions of that act , ) rests on the same grounds as those of all Dissenters must have done after the Toleration Act , and previous to the Marriage Act . It is true that the Ecclesiastical Courts considered themselves as entitled to disavow all marriages not contracted according to ecclesiastical ordinances ; and , for aught we know , they might even now refuse administration to a Quaker or Jewish widow . But at common law the marriage was good , and the heir of such a marriage would have inherited .
Convenience in registration , and general agreement m point of doctrine , had in practice , it would appear , induced the Dissenters , except the Quakers , almost constantly to resort to the church for marriage ; and when the Marriage Act passed , none but Jews and Quakers complained . Conformity as to all other persons became compulsory by the operation of this act ; and by law every one , be his opinions what they may , is now pro hdc vice a member of the church , and is obliged to use a service which clearly contemplates church membership , and expressly points to a subsequent
com-. The state has certainly a right to interfere with marriage , ( considered as an engagement involving the most important civil consequences , ) by imposing previous restrictions , and regulating the circumstances attendant upon its celebration and record , with a view to such consequences ; but it is obvious that compelling all persons to pass through the religious ordinances of the church , though one way of effecting the legitimate purpose of the state , is not only not the only way , but is not the best way , even
supposing that conscience is to go for nothing in the account . But the state may further think it its duty to see that so important an obligation has , with a view to its effect on public morals , the sanction of a religious ceremony . On this head the state ' s interference is less easily justified ; but if we concede the point , the necessity only becomes the more obvious of consulting the religious feeling of the parties , and of taking care that the ceremonial is one accordant with the opinions and devotional feeling of the party , and not in direct opposition to his known and openly avowed creed .
The government , therefore , as soon as a case was made out of a breach of religious freedom ( arising from institutions adopted for reasons , whether of civil or religious policy , not maturely enough considered ) , ought to have hastened to its relief . If it saw fit to intrust the official duties respecting this important contract to parties having a religious bias different from that of many with whom they must come in contact , it should have required those who retained the office to do it in a suitable manner . We have seen ,
however , how this matter has been treated by some persons , and how common sense and liberal feeling have been set at nought , even in defiance of the most eminent men both in church and state , who have acknowledged the evil and done what they could to remedy it . The House of Commons has three times passed bills for the relief of Unitarians . The House of Lords has several times decided by majorities in their
favour ; yet while the principle is conceded , it is thought in this country decorous and becoming to fetter the applicants with all the technical difficulties of devising a plan of removing an acknowledged evil , and to triumph , session after session , in contrivances for baffling the complainants , by playing off the prejudices of one set of men against those of another . What a specimen is this of the folly of combining civil institutions with the worship and religious opinions of one sect , the ministers of which turn round on the very government which employs them , and refuse either to do its work pro-
Untitled Article
540 Review . —Parochial Registration .
-
-
Citation
-
Monthly Repository (1806-1838) and Unitarian Chronicle (1832-1833), Aug. 2, 1828, page 540, in the Nineteenth-Century Serials Edition (2008; 2018) ncse.ac.uk/periodicals/mruc/issues/vm2-ncseproduct2563/page/28/
-