in conformity with the ritual of the Church. It is more than idle therefore to pretend to consult the clergyman, or to argue with him the difficulties of the case: he is bound by his oath of canonical obedience to administer the rites of the Church, which he has no authority or discretion to alter or curtail, and which if he should venture to alter, the marriage might be of doubtful and disputable validity, and the parties would have the prudence to refuse a privilege which they have now the temerity to solicit. It is more than idle to offer what the parties call a protest, which is to the clergyman no more than so much blank paper, of which he can take no notice, and which can bind him to no sort of action. It is more than idle to accuse the unaccommodating intolerance of the clergyman, whose presence might or might not be demanded, but whose presence can only be required for the performance of specific duties in a specific form. It is more than idle to interrupt the public service by expressions of hostility, which can operate in nothing but the aggravation of evil. The office is not sensible of the contempt; the officer has given no cause of offence, and is gratuitously insulted. Freethinking Christians might have been expected to allow others to think as freely as themselves, and unless they lay an exclusive claim to infallibility, as well as freedom of thought, it would be no extraordinary effort of liberality to conceive, that others may be as sincere in believing as they are in disbelieving a particular doctrine. They complain of injury in respect of the compulsory use of the office; but can they expect to be believed in their plea, when they volun

tarily appear as the witnesses of ceremonies which they profess to hold in abhorrence? And is there not a secret mind and spirit of persecution in pretending an official interference, in assuming a right and authority to make objections which cannot be removed, of offering protests which cannot but be impertinent and unmeaning, and in recording offences which nothing but their own folly has provoked. The man who draws down injury upon himself has the redress in his own power, because he may avoid it. If the Freethinking Christian has reason to complain of a grievance in the necessity of his own marriage, he has not the same plea, the fault is exclusively his own, when he is the mere witness of the marriage of another. When it is urged, that if certain expressions are "read before young females and children they are extremely revolting," is it not obvious to ask, Is there any occasion for their being read before them? May not their presence be dispensed with? And is not the fault chiefly with those who do not keep them away? The rudeness of turning the back upon the ceremony; the suspension of the voice, and the declaration of dissent between certain words; the occasional refusal to repeat those words; the frequent appearance at a ritual which is not approved; the paltry advantage which is taken in recording the perplexities, the hesitations, the scruples, the remarks, the occupations, the defects of temper or of manners, in the clergy with whom it is professed to confer; all which the Freethinking Christians have recorded' of their own conduct, is

'Freethinking Christians' Quarterly Register, No. iii.

calculated only to exasperate and offend; can be read only with a blush of shame by the moderate men of their own party; and should abate the zeal of any but a partial or interested advocate, as it will assuredly increase and confirm the honest objections of their adversaries.

The religious ratification of marriage has been shewn to be part of the ancient and common law of England, from which none but Jews and Quakers have ever been exempted; and it is conceived, that the further extension of this licence would be highly inexpedient, as involving the concession of a valuable principle, introductory of many and great inconveniences, and not calculated to satisfy the wants of any but the most inconsiderate of those who profess to desire it. In the general ignorance of the true merits of the question the importunity of the petitioners may nevertheless prevail; and if a compromise can be made, without betraying the great principle of the religious ratification of marriage, it is the interest of all parties that it should be concerted. If all sects are required to comply with a particular ritual for the solemnization of marriage, it is certainly desirable, that that ritual should be of the simplest and most unexceptionable form: and if in the present circumstances of religious division in England, a formulary of marriage was now to be constructed for the general use, there can be no doubt, that it would be constructed on the most general principles, and that, as it would also be required for the use of all classes, the educated and the uneducated, it would be expressed in terms the most plain and easy to be understood. It was the

objection of Doctor Johnson, that "our marriage service is too refined; it is calculated only for the best kind of marriages, whereas we should have a form for matches of convenience, of which there are many." This was the fault of its origin in an age when but little attention was paid to the wants of the great body of the people, and they were hardly admitted to the rights of marriage: and there are but few who will contend that the existing ritual is marked by a character of comprehensive simplicity, or that it is so excellent in itself as not to require and not to admit improvement. The rejection of such a curtailment of the ritual as should leave nothing which might be called a religious ratification of marriage has been generally and justly approved; but a wish has at the same time been expressed, that certain parts of the service should be amended or suppressed. It is objected, that there are parts in which the sentiment is indelicate; in which the expression is obsolete or obscure: and, so far as the particular objections of the Unitarians are worthy of attention, there is a necessity of entering upon the very delicate question, How far the recognition of the doctrine of the Trinity is requisite to the solemnization of matrimony? How far it is necessary that marriage should be solemnized in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost? The candour of the reader is especially intreated in the discussion of these questions, which involves the expedience of a review of the Office for the Solemnization of Matrimony, with suggestions for its

Boswell's Life; the year 1769.

amendment, the results of frequent and serious meditation.,

It is objected, and can hardly be denied, that there is an offensive indelicacy of expression in the introductory sentences of the Office of Matrimony, which are usually defended with the equivocal and evasive apology, that where the mind is not corrupted improper ideas will not be entertained, and that at the time in which the office was compiled there was no such offence in the language as is imputed by the fastidious refinement of the present day. It is not improbable that the real purity of our manners has not corresponded with the studied purity of our oral conversation; and there may have been as much modesty in the age of Congreve and of Dryden as in that of Cumberland: but the true question at issue is, Whether the language of the Office of Matrimony is such as it becomes a holy man to address to a modest and virtuous woman? And it is difficult to answer this question without qualification or reserve. It is not necessary upon all occasions and without discrimination to affirm that marriage should not be taken in hand wantonly, to satisfy men's carnal lusts and appetites, like brute beasts that have no understanding; or that marriage was ordained for a remedy against sin, and to avoid fornication, that such persons as have not the gift of continency might marry and keep themselves undefiled members of Christ's body. In some cases the admonition is too late; in others it is not demanded, it is not justified by the circumstances. In the case of many young persons there are pure motives of marriage; and the assertions are irrelevant in the