own disgrace ;-to make her the servant, for civil purposes, of those who deny her first and most essential doctrines? By the repeal of the statute of William and Mary, and of the excepting clause in the Toleration Act, they had given the benefit of the Act to these persons. But what had it given? It was doubtful to him whether it did more than repeal the particular punishment to an offence which the Legislature conceived to be punishable before, and so exempt these parties from particular penalties. Did that go to alter the common law? God forbid he should take on himself to decide what the common law was; all he contended for was, that whatever it was before 9 and 10 William and Mary, it so remained after the repeal. As long as he sat there he should oppose making the Church subservient to the support of the greatest heresy to her doctrines. The most essential of those doctrines he had always understood to be the Trinity; and how could it be contended that she should be made to assist the plans of those who openly denied and impugned it? He should, therefore, vote against the Bill altogether.

Lord LIVERPOOL did not rise to enter into a discus

He

sion of the particular provisions of the Bill. He should vote for the second reading, and for going into a Committee, where several alterations would doubtless be necessary, for he had no difficulty in saying, that if the Bill were to come out of the Committee in its present shape, he should oppose it hereafter. was, for instance, prepared to give relief to the case where both parties were Unitarians, but not where only one was So. The Church, he thought, had a right to require the marriage of all its members. In the case of Jews and Quakers, both must be of that persuasion. He thought too, that the fact of the parties being Unitarians, must not stand alone on their declaration, but that some certificate should be required from their minister of the fact. What he meant was, to be sure that the parties were bona fide entitled to the provision in their favour. He thought the Bill might be so amended as to reach all his objections, and should vote for the second reading.

The Bishop of CHESTER, before he entered on the reasons for which he opposed the Bill, begged leave to observe, that no man could be more favourable to every sound principle of

civil and religious toleration than himself. Human laws ought never to be used for the purpose of imposing any unjust restriction on conscientious feeling. In these principles of toleration he had been educated, and the same, he trusted, he should always support,

"Dum spiritus hos regit

artus." The intercourse between the creature and the Creator ought to be free as air, for this plain reason, that we were bound to obey God rather than man. But the present question was not one of religious toleration, but of civil jurisdiction; it was a question, not of Church doctrine, but of Church discipline. It would be only to waste their Lordships' time, were he to endeavour to shew the advantages of a national and established religion. Those advantages had been proved by many excellent writers: and among others by the excellent author of "Moral and Political Philosophy," an author who required no praise of his, and to whom, he was sure, the Noble Lord opposite would be ready to pay the just tribute of his admiration. But if it was clear that the establishment of a national religion was advantageous, it was equally

clear that that establishment should be upheld and protected by peculiar rights and privileges. That marriages should be celebrated in the Churches of the Establishment was one of the privileges which had been conceded to it; and having been so conceded, as a pe culiar right and privilege. it ought not to be taken away without the assignment of a valid and sufficient reason. In his opinion, the Unitarians had not made out that sufficient reason. This was a point, he admitted, which he was bound to prove, and should proceed to do so. The fair way of considering the subject was to consider what it was, according to the marriage ceremony of the Church of England, that the Unitarian was called upon to subscribe or to declare. In the first place, the Unitarian was called upon to subscribe his name as one of the parties to the contract there made. He could find no difficulty in doing that. But besides this, he was bound, in the progress of the ceremony, to say, "With this ring I thee wed, with my body I thee worship, and with all my worldly goods I thee endow; in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost." But were not these the

words of Scripture? If the Unitarian believed in Scripture, and that these very words were there, (as no doubt he did,) what reasonable objection could he have to repeat those words? He might affix to them what meaning he thought most scriptural. Every one was at perfect liberty to do that. It was the spirit of the services, as of the Articles of our excellent Church, to use general scriptural language, to which all might be left to affix their own interpretations But how could those words be considered as objectionable by the Unitarians, when the following words were used by the Unitarians themselves in the baptismal part of their Form of Prayer, of which he (the Bishop of Chester) had obtained the last edition:-"I baptize thee into the name of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit." To be sure the word "in" was changed into "into," but he did not see what difference that could make. It seemed to him, therefore, to be impossible that they could object to words in the marriage ceremony of the Church of England, which they themselves pronounced in their own forms. So far, therefore, their Lordships would agree, that the Unitarians had at pre

sent no just cause for complaint. He wished, however, to meet this important subject fairly and without reserve; and he would, therefore, admit that the marriage service of the Church added a blessing by the minister, in the following words: "God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost, bless," &c. But here he would ask, if the Unitarian did not conceive himself to receive any good from a benediction in the name or mode of Deity, which he did not admit, still could he think it did him any harm? He could have no objection to its being given in the terms which, in the apprehension of the minister of the Church, adequately described the Being whom he adored. The Unitarian was not bound to assent to the accuracy of those terms. He might affix to them what meaning he pleased. There was no force or compulsion upon him to induce him to acquiesce in them. The very minister who used them, probably knew that he did not acquiesce in them, and how, therefore, was he aggrieved? He (the Bishop of Chester) would deal with a Unitarian as he should himself wish to be dealt with under similar circumstances. Were he in a foreign country-in a country

of Jews, of Catholics, or Mussulmen-and it were necessary for him to marry there, no consideration on earth should induce him to subscribe to any form of words, or to declare his assent to any doctrines contrary to his own conviction. But in things indifferent in themselves, even though he might consider them as absurd or false, he should consider any objection as ridiculous, and should hold himself bound to comply with the established laws and ceremonies of the country. Now really, the objection of the Unitarians to conform to the marriage ceremony of the Established Church, appeared to him to be of the latter description. It did not appear to him, that, by acquiescing in the terms of that ceremony, they could be considered in foro conscientia, as sinning against any law, either of God or of man. As to the machinery of the Bill, the present was not the fit opportunity to discuss it; but he would just observe, that in the Bill which regulated the marriages of Jews and Quakers, it was provided that both parties must be either Jews or Quakers. If the present Bill passed into a law, let not the House lay the flattering unction to their souls that the same

privileges and immunities would not be required by the other sects of Dissenters. Although he was far from wishing to say any thing against the Unitarians, he really did not think that they ought to be considered as a favourite sect. If, therefore, the other sects of Dissenters were to be invested with the same privileges, let their Lordships consider what a falling off there would be in the number of marriages celebrated by ministers of the Established Church, and what a diminution of their emoluments. He certainly did not mean to lay any great stress on this last argument. If the Dissenters were entitled to this indulgence, let it be granted to them. "Fiat justitia ruat cælum." But unquestionably the effect of such a measure would be, and especially in large manufacturing towns, such as those within his own diocese, to make little livings still less. Now really it seemed hardly fair to deprive the possessors of those little livings of a portion of that stipend which was already sufficiently scanty. Marriage fees formed a large part of the stipend of those clergy who always resided on their livings, faithfully discharging all their sacred functions, and from whom,

therefore, it would be very hard to deduct so important a portion of their income. He was aware that the Bill continued "the usual and accustomed fee" to the minister of the Church, but it was well known that the fee fixed by the law was not the one usually given. Such was the view which he took of the question. Whatever effect the arguments which he had urged might have on their Lordships' minds, he could assure them that they had produced conviction in his own. He should be extremely sorry if the opinions which he had expressed should give offence to any person. It was far from his wish to give any such offence. But he was not so unobservant of the signs of the times as not to remark that those who were most clamorous for religious toleration for themselves, were the least inclined to grant even a little toleration to others. If, also, he had the misfortune to differ from any of those with whom it would be his pride and pleasure to agree, that would be to him a source of still deeper regret; but every such circumstance was comparatively unimportant, when put in competition with duty. "Amicus Plato, sed magis amica veritas." He trusted,

that on all questions in which the interests and the stability of the Church of England were concerned, their Lordships would never shew any thing like apathy or indifference; that they would think that in all these things, "tua res agitur." He trusted that their Lordships would, on the present occasion, exclaim, if not in the exact words, at least in the spirit and feeling of the ancient Barons---Nolumus leges EcCLESIÆ mutari.”

Lord HARROWBY perfectly agreed with the last speaker as to the duty of that House, if the Bill did, as he supposed, affect the real interests of the Church. If it did, none would be a more decided opponent than himself. But he could not

see any thing in it which in any degree did that. Neither could he admit the force of that prelate's objections to the validity of the Unitarian's scruples. As to the repetition of "the Father, the Son, and Holy Ghost," he confessed that it did appear to him to be a strange cavil to object to words which they themselves used. But then came the benedicion, and there, he fairly confessed, he could conceive most serious objections in the mind of a person feeling a conscientious difficulty in giving an