תמונות בעמוד
PDF
ePub

an Act is passed to relieve Protestant dissenting_ministers and schoolmasters. I have no doubt that this was a very proper Act. Secondly, an Act to exempt from penalties those who impugn the doctrine of the Trinity. This also might be proper; though, judging from what followed the passing of it, I am not quite so convinced of its expediency, as of the former; because, as will be in the recollection of many of your readers, several of the public papers immediately announced the giving of lectures on topics that were in direct hostility to the national creed, and conveyed in language, as if studied for the purpose of bringing into contempt the Established Church. Still, though this act opened the way for direct aggression on our Church, and furnished the opportunity of showing how agreeable it would be to Unitarians to bring both it, and its clergy into public contempt, yet it did not proceed so far as to enlist the clergy themselves in the work of degrading their church. This was reserved for the present bill; and as the attempt is now made for the first time, it is necessary that we should at length open our eyes to the danger, and make a firm stand against so insidious an attack upon our vital interests. Should we tamely acquiesce in this attempt to make us agents in working our own dishonour and ruin, we may rest assured that further employment is in reserve for us; for our enemies are too discerning not to know that the work of destruction is never so sure as when those whose duty it is to uphold and defend, can be induced to desert their post, and join in confederacy with their enemies.

6. But I view the Bill in another light, and consider it as calculated to lay a very heavy burden on our consciences. If the measure be fraught with the evils which I have pointed out, it will be perceived that some of them are of a moral character, and cannot be imposed upon us without invading our principles. I consider the doctrine of the Trinity fundamental and essential; and I cannot consent to put that doctrine in abeyance, to meet any man's prejudices or scruples. I look upon marriage as a divine institution, and to be celebrated with holy rites; and my conscience would be violated, if compelled to take any part in desecrating it to a civil contract. I publish the names of the party to be joined in marriage as about to enter into a "holy" compact, and I ought not to be made an agent in degrading it into a secular covenant. I am bound both by conviction and affection, as well as by the most solemn obligations, to support the interests of the established church; and I ought not to be compelled either directly or indirectly, to aid the views of those who are aiming at its destruction. Now I adduce this argument as of itself more than sufficient to countervail all the reasons that can be assigned for employing the agency of clergymen in Unitarian marriages: for what is the pretext for introducing this obnoxious bill? The preamble states it:'Whereas several of his majesty's subjects, being protestant dissenters from the Church of England, entertaining conscientious scruples with respect to belief in the doctrine of the Trinity, and commonly called Unitarians, regard the necessity of solemnizing matrimony according to the office of matrimony in the Book of Common Prayer, as a grievance repugnant to their religious feelings; and whereas it is expedient to grant some ease to scrupulous consciences in this respect, be it therefore enacted,' &c. Now, in the name of common propriety, let me ask whether 'the conscientious scruples' of men who deny the doctrine of the Trinity, ought to have more weight with the legislature, than of those who believe it? Or are we to suppose that the consciences of churchmen are of firmer texture than those of Unitarians? Or is a grievance repugnant to' a Socinian's religious feelings,' to be treated with greater tenderness than one repugnant to ours? Would the legislature be acting with even-handed justice in granting ease to the scrupulous consciences' of those who are opposed to the religion established by the state, and to lay the burden on the equally scrupulous consciences' of those whose duty and inclination it is to support it? Should it be contended that the objections above-mentioned against this Bill are founded in error, and the difficulties stated, are merely imaginary, this will not weaken the argument before us. We may admit that ours may be only the scruples of conscience, and ask, in reply, whether it is not to remove scruples that the Bill is introduced? Surely we shall not be required to disbelieve the doctrine of the Trinity because Unitarians deny it? and with our views of the subject, we can consider their difficulties only as scruples, and it is solely to remove these, that the Bill is introduced. Should it be contended therefore that our difficulties are no more than scruples, we still maintain that the legislature in granting ease to their consciences, ought not to lay a burden upon ours. 7. But I proceed a step further, and contend that it is simply a scruple on the side of Unitarians, which constitutes their difficulty, while a principle is involved on

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

our side, in the contemplated change. The objection to the marriage ceremony is stated to be the Unitarian's disbelief of the doctrine of the Trinity. Now in what part of the ceremony does that doctrine appear? Not in any in which the Unitarian is required to take a part, or to give his assent. The service only in one place implies it in language to which the Unitarian can take any objection; and that is in the benediction pronounced by the priest at the conclusion: for as to the words to be used by the man, with all my worldly goods, I thee endow,' " in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost," these last words are precisely those of Scripture; and as the Unitarian professes to draw his doctrines from this source as well as ourselves, and differs from us, by giving his own interpretation to scriptural terms, so on this quotation, of course he is left to put his own construction, and in doing this no principle of conscience is violated, nor need there, one should think, be much scruple. The only part to which even a scruple can apply is the being present when the minister pronounces the benediction, but in this he evidently takes no part, nor even gives his assent. But what weight can there be in a scruple like this, when placed in the balance against those principles which I have shown would be invaded by the passing of this obnoxious Bill?

8. I object lastly against this Bill, on the ground that the obnoxious part of it is altogether unnecessary. The Unitarians may have their scruples removed without violating the principles of clergymen. Why may not relief be granted to them, as it has already been granted to Quakers and Jews? Each of these marry in their own way, and without the least agency of clergymen; and the law recognizes their marriages as it does those which are solemnized in the Church of England. If publicity be required to prevent clandestine marriages, surely various methods may be devised to effect this, without interrupting the solemn services of religion, and compelling the clergyman to proclaim the banns' of a civil contract between two Unitarians. And as for registry, why not register their marriages as they do their births, baptisms, and deaths? what has the clergyman to do with one more than the other? The scruple then may be easily removed from the conscience of the Unitarian, without transferring it to that of the churchman; and to lay so unneces sary a burden upon us, seems to be a gratuitous affront to our order, and an insiduous attempt to injure our church.

6

It is said that the Bill has had the support of some of the Episcopal Bench. If so, we may lament the fact, but deny that it removes either the danger or the burden. I have already taken up too much of your room; but the subject is of paramount importance; and I wish to arouse my slumbering brethren to a sense of the impending evil. I call upon them to exercise the greatest vigilance. Let them recollect that the Bill, in its most obnoxious form, passed one House of Parliament without a single animadversion or even remark; and had not our church been represented in the other, by men of our own order, we might, at this moment, have been required to desecrate the sanctuary of our religion, and to pour contempt on its sacred services, by becoming the sole agents in Unitarian marriages, in the vestry of our churches, and without a single religious ceremony. Let us then, as a body, throughout the kingdom, petition parliament, as soon as it next assembles, to avert from ourselves and our church so great an injury, and so foul a disgrace. CLERICUS SURRENSIS.

Notices and Acknowledgments.

Received:-SOMEBODY.-T. ——AN OBSERVER.-VOLEUS.-DAVID. We are not able to furnish the information which A solitary Christian desires.. The copies of letters inquired after by our constant reader T. W. have been received; as however they are preserved in another publication it does not appear expedient to reprint them.

A Correspondent inquires, Can any light be thrown on the origin of that wandering, yet interesting tribe, the gypsies: who are found living in almost all 'parts of the world as strangers and outcasts. As they are beginning to excite an interest in the hearts of some of the benevolent, and measures are in some 'parts adopted for their spiritual improvement; it seems that something further should be known of them, and this feeling be more extensively cultivated. Should any of our correspondents possess any information on the subject, we shall be happy to receive it.

[graphic][ocr errors][ocr errors][subsumed][merged small][subsumed]

London: Pulliched by L.B. Seeley & Son 169. Fleet Street. Dec.1.1827.

HMeyer, Sculp

CHRISTIAN GUARDIAN,

AND

Church of England Magazine.

DECEMBER 1827.

MEMOIRS OF THE REFORMERS.

BRADFORD.

EVER since the disciples were called Christians first at Antioch, there have been certain members of their body so eminent for fervour of devotion, purity of conversation, and integrity of life, as to have gained, by general suffrage of the orthodox, the distinguishing epithet of holy. Such was the case with the occupant of the present division of our pages.

John Bradford was a native of Manchester, who, after a competent education, became a retainer of Sir John Harrington, Knight, Treasurer to Henry the Eighth and Edward the Sixth, in affairs relative to their encampments and fortifications in Boulogne and its vicinity on the French coast, from 1544 to 1550. His diligence and fidelity gave such satisfaction to his patron and other persons about the Court, as would have opened fair prospects of success, had he aspired to some honourable or lucrative post under Government. But so deeply was his mind imbued at this season with religious sentiment, and so influential were his convictions of the vanity of rank or wealth, and the infinite importance of eternal realities, that he quitted the Temple in London, where he had begun the study of the law, and entered himself a member of the University of Cambridge, that he might devote his time to biblical science and theological attainment. Though from compassion for the ignorance and

DEC. 1827.

blindness in which his countrymen were involved, he doubtless contemplated future opportunities of usefulness, from his increased acquaintance with divine truth, he does not seem at the commencement of his academical career to have had in view the office of the ministry. But, after being raised to the degree of Master of Arts, though the period of his residence had been less than a year, and chosen Fellow of Pembroke Hall, Martin Bucer, who lectured in divinity, was so much gratified with his piety and application, that he used much persuasion to engage him to enter into holy orders; to which Bradford constantly answered, that he was not sufficiently qualified. The professor used to reply," If thou hast not manchet, yet give the people barley-bread, or such as thou hast." He was at length ordained deacon by Bishop Ridley; who, with that mildness and consideration which ever marked his character, simplified the ceremony as much as possible to meet the wishes of the candidate, gave him a licence to preach, and made him Prebendary of St. Paul's.

He now devoted himself to the office of a steward of the manifold grace of God, and a messenger to the Church, earnestly opposing Romish error, and affectionately exhibiting the Saviour to the acceptance of a fallen race. Nor did the accession of Queen Mary check

3 L

« הקודםהמשך »