what they believed to be its dictates. It is, at all events, expected of men to be consistent. And it cannot, I think, be right, in any case, for a man to say, that this is a violation of conscience, and at the same time to do it. For he thus sins against conviction, with his eyes open, and in the midst of light. I have been indifferent to the subject, thinking it of no-moment; and I have passed it over unnoticed, or, as a matter of course, with a hasty glance. I was not aware that Unitarians had committed themselves so far; much less that there were any among them who viewed conformity in this case, as “a palpable violation of moral principle." This to me is astonishing; and more so, if men making such a declaration, are conformists.

P. You know they are; and likewise Unitarians generally, notwithstanding their declarations in their petitions, and their statement of conscientious scruples and objections in the Bill.-L. Well, then, out of their own mouths they are condemned. They have brought themselves into this dilemma, by silly scruples, and childish fears; and they must bear their own penalty. I count myself more fortunate in my happy, and, I will say, well-founded, indifference. For it is folly to make so much-ado about a mere paltry ceremony.

P. I am astonished to hear you talk in this manner. Are you, as an individual, to set your opinion against the whole body of Unitarians; and more especially, when you confess, that you have never given the subject a proper consideration?-L. There are many who think with me; at least I should judge so, from their conduct, in conforming to the ceremony. Besides, do you intend to say, that general opinion is a proof of truth?

P. Most certainly not. But I cannot suppose, that Unitarians would pronounce the service a violation of their consciences, if there were not good grounds for believing it to be so; because, such a conclusion, in a case of so interesting a nature, must be highly painful and revolting to their feelings. They must be desirous to banish, rather than to cherish it; and if they have not acted agreeably to it, it is because it is exceedingly difficult and distressing to do so.-L. This, I admit, carries some force with it; perhaps it is the strongest argument that can be urged in the case. I feel for Unitarians, from my heart. They are placed in a painfully delicate situation; and I wish most sincerely, they had the desired relief.

66

P. There is also another strong confirmation of what has been advanced, in the fact, that others, who are not Unitarians, have admitted the reasonableness of their objections, and the justice of their prayer. And such persons, I think, you will readily grant, cannot be biased, either one way or the other. Their testimony must be impartial, because disinterested. And it is, briefly, as follows:-The Edinburgh Review, for March 1821, says, that "the Establishment compels a Unitarian to abjure his faith, before it will allow him to marry." The Earl of Liverpool said, that "the conscientious scruple, was in his opinion, a just and well-founded scruple," and that "he thought Unitarians fairly and conscientiously entitled to the relief." 66 Unitarians," declared Lord Ellenborough, "were compelled to profess conformity to doctrines and worship which they disavowed, or be debarred from entering into the most important relation of life." "Unitarians are required at present," affirmed the Bishop of Worcester, "to join in a service that implies a confession of faith repugnant to their conscientious feelings and opinions." The Unitarian dissenter," said Lord Harrowby, "when appearing at the altar, is called upon to do violence to his conscience, in using expressions that oblige him to screen himself under mental equivocation and reservation." "Really this is a most cruel requisition," observed Lord Holland. "The Unitarian is to be required to repeat words to which, it is avowed, the priest annexes one meaning, and he another. It is quite clear that such matters must be painful and revolting." "A Unitarian is obliged," said Dr. Lushington, "to utter with his mouth at the altar, that which he abhors in his heart." This conformity is designated by the Marquis of Lansdown, as "giving a false and feigned assent to doctrines which Unitarians declare they do not believe"-as "approaching the altar with falsehood in their mouths." "That unhallowed equivocation, which, sanctioned by law, now takes place at the altar!" exclaimed the Archbishop of Canterbury. "That scandalous profanation of a compromise at the altar!" exclaimed the Bishop of Lichfield and Coventry. "This solemn mockery"-observed the Lord Chancellor Lyndhurst" this unhallowed equivocation, as the Right Reverend Prelate called it, ought to be got quit of." Such are the testimonies of persons standing high in character and station, and disinterested in the question. They

ought to carry weight with them; and, I think, they must, to every Unitarian that will reflect.-L. They are, I confess, strong and decisive, and are, doubtless, sincere. As testimonies, they come well recommended, and deserve a proper consideration. But the question, after all, must be decided by its own merits.

P. I grant it; but collateral evidence is not to be rejected, if it be legitimate and conclusive. And I think this species of evidence is so, in the present instance.L. But what is to be done? Though the present ceremony would not give me a moment's uneasiness, and though I should think myself silly in the extreme, were it to prevent me, for a moment, from being married, yet I am willing to admit, that some, perhaps many Unitarians, may feel strong objections to it; and, for their sakes, I wish the relief applied for, were granted. But what then? There must be a law, and that law must be obeyed, or a bad example is set, and general licentiousness prevails.

P. I would not encourage any thing that would tend to either of these effects. But would you say, that that law must contravene the law of God? Z. Most certainly

not.

P. Then we ought to obey God, rather than man.— L. Undoubtedly; but the case ought to be so clear, as almost to amount to demonstration.

P. It ought not to be frivolous; and it is not so, I think, in the present case. The law of the land says, Bow down and worship a Trinity. The law of God says, The true worshippers must worship the Father in spirit and in truth; for the Father seeketh such to worship him. There need not, in my opinion, be any hesitation which of these laws to obey. They cannot be confounded, for they are so completely dissimilar. They cannot be reconciled, for they are diametrically opposed in their principles. And if the above rule is to guide us, we need not be at a loss where obedience points.-L. This, however, would lead us over the same ground again. I am not arguing for myself, but for others; for those who say, that the present marriage ceremony violates their consciences: and I ask for a temporary relief, until a permanent one can be obtained. How are they to preserve their consciences pure, and still obey the ordinance of God, by entering into the holy state of matrimony?

P. It would be sufficient for the preservation of con

66

science, if the parties could obtain from the officiating clergyman, a promise that he would omit all that is Trinitarian in the ceremony. But this has been refused by the Legislature; and it is not likely to be granted by the appointed clerical organ of the law, though other passages are omitted, at the minister's option; whether lawfully or not, is another question. The clergy, indeed, generally speaking, so far from showing any indulgence to Unitarian scruples of conscience, have been remarkably rigid and severe, in enforcing the obnoxious law: so that it would be exceedingly doubtful, whether any favour or mercy might be expected from them. Charity," says the Apostle, "seeketh not her own.' But they have insisted upon their own, or what the law has unjustly called their own, with the utmost severity. Of the truth of this, the following is a remarkable instance:-" When the minister had declared the parties to be man and wife, they turned from the altar, but were afterwards, during the concluding prayers, required to kneel, against which they had before protested, and which they declined as being here unnecessary; whereupon the minister, refusing to proceed, sat down. After some time, the elder protested as before, whereupon the parties submitted, and the minister, after consulting with Mr. Marryatt, the barrister, proceeded to the completion of the ceremony."-(Examiner, Jan. 28, 1827.) Thus, suffering conscience, in a situation the most painfully distressing, has excited in the breasts of the clergy no pity: "they would have their bond." And with propriety might it be said to them, "Go ye, and learn what that meaneth; I will have mercy, and not sacrifice." It is to be feared, that they have none towards Unitarians; and no remittance of the law's severity, is to be expected at their hands.-L. Pardon me, my dear Sir, I think you are a little too hard upon the clergy. They have consciences to keep, as well as Unitarians; and they only faithfully discharge their duty, in performing the ceremony according to the strict letter.

P. But they do not observe the strict letter; and if they think it consistent with their duty to omit any part of the service, why not omit that which, to Unitarians, is the most offensive? Perhaps, because it is the most offensive, and that Unitarians are deemed by them an obnoxious sect. Be this, however, as it may; sure I am, that if a Unitarian minister were interring a Trinitarian,

and the grave were surrounded by Trinitarian relatives of the deceased, he would be anxious to avoid every thing in his address and prayer, that might wound their religious feelings; though he is as much bound to discharge his duty faithfully in the sight of God, as the clergyman of the Established Church. The fact is, the celebration of marriage, and the interment of the dead, are not the proper seasons for them to enforce their peculiar dogmas. The pulpit or the press, is the legitimate ground on which they may declare the whole counsel of God. And if faithful here, they need not the abominable auxiliary of a forced compliance with their peculiar creeds. Nor can any minister of religion be innocent, when, in any case, he compels people to violate their consciences. For though merely the organ of the law, yet if that law be persecuting and sinful, which it must be by violating conscience, he is himself verily guilty, in lending himself to work iniquity. But to return from this digression. We were speaking of a plan of temporary relief. There is none to be obtained from a remittance of the offensive passages of the ceremony. And as to the principle of protesting-conformity adopted by some Unitarians, it is worse than nothing. It is selfcondemnation-in the language of the Associated Petition of Kent and Sussex, "a palpable violation of moral principle." The late Chancellor Eldon protested against the Catholic Relief Bill, but he did not vote for it. Had he protested and voted, he would have been deemed a sillier old man than he is. There appears, then, to be no plan so eligible, as that of Unitarians going to Scotland to solemnize their marriages.

(To be Continued.)

Mr. Walter Balfour.

(His Letter to Mr. Harris: concluded from page 58.)

BUT what I am chiefly concerned with is, to state my present views of future punishment. It is, then, my belief, that God never threatened men with punishment after death, either endless or limited. The texts generally quoted in proof of these somewhat different systems, I think, have been greatly misunderstood, and in my