‘34 On the Celebration of Marriage. 
inthe time of man’s innocency, signi- 
fying unto us the mystical union which 
is between Christ and his church. It 
does not however appear that the 
church of England professes to derive 
its authority in this matter from the 
Scriptures; for, in the 25th article of 
faith, it has these words: ‘* Confirma- 
tion, orders, matrimony, &c. are not to 
be counted for sacraments of the Gos- 
pel; being such as have grown partly 
out of the corrupt following of the 
Apostles, partly are states. of life 
allowed by the Scriptures, but yet have 
not like nature of sacraments with 
Baptism and the Lord’s Supper; for 
that they have no visible sign or cere- 
mony ordained of God.” 
Now, sir, if marriage has no visible 
sign or ceremony ordained of God, 
who has ordained the religious forms 
with which it is now celebrated? and 
why is it not put on the same footing 
with every other regulation “necessary 
for the well-being of society ? 
By rendering marriage a civil act, 
no violence would be done to the scru- 
ples of any, ‘Those who might think it 
incomplete without the sanction of a 
religious ceremony, might obtain it 
from their own minister, according to 
heir own forms and tenets. 
Weare in the habit of contrasting the 
blessings of the Protestant religion with 
Catholicism,—English freedom with 
the effects of the Bourbon dynasty,— and 
yet, sir,what is the fact? In France,with 
more superstition and less political 
liberty, they have (on this subject, at 
Jeast,) more liberality and tolerance. 
The contract of marriage is there rati- 
fied before a civil officer ; and this is all 
the law requires. Afterwards, those 
who wish to confirm it by a religious 
ceremony, may obtain the sanction of 
the priest ; but, in a legal sense, it is 
not necessary. Surely, sir, this is the 
broad basis of justice on which it ought 
to be placed. 
’ My next objection to the present 
form of marriage regards the character 
and composition of the church service. 
It might have been expected that, on a 
subject of such grave importance to 
the parties interested, some useful 
hints would be given; some principles 
Jaid down for the preservation of their 
mutual happiness; some cautions 
against the rocks on which the peace 
of families is often wrecked ; some sa- 
lutary advice on the duties of domestic 
life: for all which (as a religious cere- 
mony,) a wide field is open, and a 
'[Aug.1, 
striking opportunity afforded. | But» 
with the exception of some few quota- 
tions from the New Testament, all this 
is omitted. Nay, the language ‘em- 
ployed in its place is indecent and 
puerile. The sentiments which are 
unnecessarily introduced on the uses 
of marriage, and the allusions and ex- 
pressions in other parts, are grossly 
indelicate. They must ever give pain 
to the ear of modesty ; and the situation 
of well-educated females, compelled to 
listen to them during the ceremony, 
is highly distressing. It is idle to say 
this language was inoffensive when 
originally framed: the refinement of 
present manners has discarded’ that 
customary plain-speaking which made 
it innocent. The example of. the 
church should further, and not retard, 
this improvement. Purity of word 
and thought should not be violated, 
but inculcated. Propriety of lan- 
guage, and delicacy of behaviour, 
should be taught, as forming the best 
security of conjugal felicity. 
On this ground alone, therefore, in 
my judgment, the present ceremony 
should be wholly revised. But the 
general character of the service is at 
variance, either with that rational and 
instructive matter it should possess as 
a religious rite, or with that business- 
like form required as a civil act. 
The language put in the mouth of 
the bride and bridegroom, after they 
have both replied in the affirmative, is 
unnecessary: ‘To have, and to hold, 
for better, for worse; for richer, for 
poorer; to love, and to cherish,” par- 
take of the absurd prolixity of an Act 
of Parliament, and border not a little 
on the ridiculous. Why, also, are we 
obliged to repeat the obsolete and 
unmeaning phrase, ‘“‘ With my body I 
thee worship?” Why, sir, amidst the 
general improvements of the age,— 
amidst the rapidincrease of knowledge 
on all subjects, and throughout all 
classes,—are. we to retain the man- 
ners, customs, and language, of anti- 
quity, in entering uponone of the most 
gprs engagements of life? 
- These, sir, are objections in which 
every branch of the community is alike 
interested; there are others which 
relate only to dissenters. 
It is not a small grievance that the 
conscientious individual, who differs 
from the creeds and forms of the 
church of England, should on_ this 
occasion be compelled to give it his 
attendance, contribute to its support 
by 
