reason to like best what they understand the least. Such men may use the Apostle John as they please; but I have that honour for him as to believe that he wrote good sense; and, therefore, take that sense to be his which is the best; especially since I am defended in it by so great authority." That authority, in the present instance, I conceive to be St. John's own language in the opening of his first epistle; the fact that no other sense attributed to Aoyos, the Word, is confirmed by other clear instances of scriptural usage, whereas that proposed by Dr. Jebb is the current sense, and the undoubted meaning in hundreds of examples; and, though last not least, the consideration that the sense of this passage, as he has given it, harmonizes completely with the phraseology and doctrine of the New Testament, and places no stumbling-block in the way of faith, but by "rendering religion more rational, renders it more credible." +

REVIEWER OF UPHAM.

question whether the most sanguine have any well-founded expectation that such an alteration will really be effected as would afford adequate relief, either to Christians who reject ALL legislative interference in whatever relates to religion, or to virtuous and consistent unbelievers. For always considering marriage a CIVIL contract, and, like every contract, strictly binding on the parties, I really cannot view such union as necessarily connected with the Christian or any other religious system. The Deist or the Atheist have assuredly an equal claim with the religious man to its enjoyment; and there is not a shadow of right to deprive him of the smallest particle of social pleasure. Enough THEY lose who possess not the privileges of Christian hopes and motives, without the infliction of any further evil.

Well satisfied and firmly fixed in these principles, we could not but feel an aversion to shew, what might be construed, a willing acquiescence in the established matrimonial service. Still we were most desirous not to offend by an abrupt or

Sir,

To the Editor.

BEING told by several friends, on whose ingenuous candour, I trust, I may rely, that the documents incorporated in and accompanying this letter would be gratifying to many of your readers, I transcribe them; and, begging a little space for preface and remark, leave the whole to be disposed of as you may think proper.

I am aware that there are those, among the liberal and enlightened of your readers, who, fully sensible of the evil complained of, yet would refrain from publicly protesting against it from a feeling of delicacy towards those ministers of the establishment who might be called upon to officiate in the marriage service. There are also others who, from the improvement they see taking place in public opinion, as well as from intimations lately given by ministers of state, expect, as well as hope, for a very favourable alteration in the laws relative to marriage, in the ensuing session of Parliament. But I may be allowed to

Letters to Le Clerc.

+ See Dr. Paley's Dedication of his Moral Philosophy to Bishop Law. I respectfully submit the paragraph from which I have quoted to the attention of T. F. B.

I therefore waited upon the clergyman expected to officiate, (Mr. Turner being in London,) at his house, to state our objections; and, at the same time, to intimate that we should, when at the altar, deliver to him a written declaration and protest against the statute which prescribes the marriage ceremony. That gentleman received me with much politeness, and, during the interview, kindly said that he perceived and felt our difficulties; candidly observing that he had no choice-his course was marked out, and he must fulfil his duty.

It would appear, however, from common practice, whatever course may be marked out in the rubrick, that "it is optional with the clergy to use or to omit a part of the ceremony." And I find, by his speech in the House of Lords, in a debate on the Unitarian Marriage Bill, (as reported in the Times newspaper,) the Bishop of Worcester emphatically laying down the same doctrine," FOR," said his Lordship, "DOES NOT EVERY

BODY KNOW THAT IN LARGE AND POPU LOUS PARISHES THE MARRIAGE, SERVICE IS NOW CONSIDERABLY ABRIDGED?" And I would boldly ask, is there ever a marriage celebrated in which the whole of the service, as it stands in the "Liturgy of the Established Church," is read ?

Is it then to be supposed that omissions of a CONSIDERABLE part of the service are made for convenience, and that similar omissions are NOT to be made

for the sake of conscience? Be it, however, understood that the following is a protest against the Marriage Act, and the Marriage Service as it stands in the "Book of Common Prayer."

PROTEST,

Presented in the Church to the Minister who officiated.

Marriage being an evident and incontrovertible natural right, it becomes a first duty of the Legislature of every civilized state to afford and provide for this all-important contract a simple and appropriate civil sanction.

The undersigned, feeling for others as for themselves, deeply regret that the sanction provided by the Legislature of their country is not of that character, but, on the contrary, is most incongruous and very seriously objectionable.

From arbitrary custom, if not by po sitive legislative enactment, Marriage in England, except in the case of Jews and Quakers, can be celebrated only under the auspices of the National Established Church. This, to the undersigned in their present circumstances, at once renders it an incumbeut duty (having learned religious and moral obligation from the New Covenant which Jesus the Christ came to promulgate) to aver and declare, that, however estimated by others, they sincerely and conscientiously consider the Church Establishment, as indeed its appellation imports, a merely civil institution, aud its ministers civil officers. And they are most desirous it should be clearly understood, that the ceremony to which they now conform is an inherent civil rite.

But, although they consider and regard the ceremony and form of marriage in the Church of England as inherently a civil rite sanctioned by an English Parli ament, yet they cannot but sincerely la ment its manifest want of simplicity, its palpable indelicacy, and, what in their matured opinion is of far greater moment, its peremptorily requiring them to witness and to appear to unite in the prescribed adoration and worship of a plurality of Gods, each of whom is separately invoked; whilst "to us there is but ONE God, even the Father, of whom are all things."

Therefore, situated as they now are, and with their views of Christian duty, the undersigned feel themselves imperatively called upon to protest solemuly against the statute of the 26th of George II., commonly called Lord Hardwicke's Marriage Act:

authority assumed and totally unwarrantable, no earthly power being competent to confer such authority) it prescribes and establishes a rite or ceremony which is not only unauthorized by, but utterly inconsistent with, that religious and moral code of which Jesus Christ was the divinely-appointed promulgator:

2ndly. Because, although the ceremony it prescribes is an acknowledged and recognized civil rite, its form is as repulsively indelicate as it is gratuitously oppressive: and,

3rdly. Because its repeal, and the enactment and substitution of another sta tute, equally efficient and at the same time perfectly unobjectionable, could not be attended with the smallest inconveni

ence.

Signed, WILLIAM ALEXANDER,
ELIZABETH MOY.

In the evening I sent a copy of the above inclosed in a letter to the Rev. Richard Turner, the venerable and justly respected perpetual curate of the parish of Great Yarmouth.

The same post also conveyed a letter inclosing another copy to their aged, most amiable, and truly venerable diocesan, the Bishop of Norwich.

I endeavoured to couch my letters in respectful terms, yet so as plainly to intimate that, if my complaint should ap pear to be well-founded, it was the enviable privilege of those who possessed the power to propose a remedy for an acknowledged great evil. And I confess it is my ardent wish, by all proper means, to endeavour to draw the attention of influential men, NOT to ourselves, for that we would gladly have avoided, but to a serious public grievance.

The post, the next day, brought the following letter from the good Bishop :

"SIR,

'Your remarks upon the form of solemnization of matrimony' in the Li turgy of the Established Church, appear gladly undertake to give my reasons for to me very satisfactory; and I would thinking so, in the House of Lords, did not the infirmities of age remind me, in a manner not to be mistaken, that I am near the end of my journey to that coungiven in marriage.' try where they neither marry nor are

"I am, Sir, Yours, &c., &c.,
" HENRY NORWICH.

"Norwich, June the 8th, 1829.

"Mr. William Alexander, Great

Here, as on all other occasions when called for, is seen his Lordship's steady, firm and fearless attachment to the holy cause of Christian liberty. And this letter itself would, perhaps, have fully justified my making it public; but I am more satisfied in having the venerable Prelate's special and unqualified permission to do so.

Believe me, Mr. Editor, always yours, faithfully,

W. A.

N. B. On returning to Yarmouth, after a fortnight's absence, earnestly desirous of not using an unwarrantable or in any respect offensive liberty, I asked the Bishop's permission to publish his answer, should it be thought advisable to make the Protest public. The following is a copy of his Lordship's reply to my application:

"DEAR SIR,

"In the course of almost every day I write so many letters upon different occasions, that it is not in my power to recollect exactly what I may have said to any particular correspondent; but, sure I am, that my attachment to the cause of religious, as well as of civil liberty, is so well grounded, that I am under no apprehension of being censured by liberal and candid men for my zeal in so good a cause; you may, therefore, do what you please with respect to the publication of the letter you mention, or of "Yours, &c., sincerely, "W. NORWICH. "Norwich, June the 24th, 1829. "Mr. William Alexander, Yarmouth, Norfolk."

this.

MRS. EACHUS,

1829. May 2, at Saffron Walden, Essex, in the 47th year of her age, Mrs. EACHUS, youngest daughter of the late Mr. Eedes, of the same town. To all who enjoyed the pleasure of her acquaintance, she was endeared by the fidelity and affection of her heart, the meekness and gentleness of her temper, her steadfast zeal for the cause of Divine truth, however unpopular, her earnest wish and constant aim to diffuse happiness through the sphere in which she moved, and the indefatigable practice of personal, domestic, and social virtue. During the whole of her lingering and severe illness, she retained unshaken confidence in God, and patiently acquiesced in the will of his righteous but unsearchable providence; and as her life was piety, her end was peace. Her religious sentiments were in accordance with those of the Old General Baptists; and by the congregation of which she was an active and useful member, and which she animated to every good work, her name will be honoured whilst the current of life flows; nor will her children and her relatives, as long as they keep in view the lustre of her example, ever want a motive to seek the noblest heights of moral improvement and Christian perfection.

Having witnessed many scenes of dis

tress, and drunk deeply of sorrow's bitter cup, she regarded this world merely as a school of discipline, in which mortals are to be trained and fitted for an

other and better state of existence. She derived much comfort, under every trial, from the promises of the gospel, and felt, on the bed of death, the efficacy of a well-grounded hope; looking forward with joy unspeakable to the happy period when there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, crying, nor any more pain-when the storms of time shall cease, the clouds and darkness which encompass the throne of Supreme Majesty disperse, the dawn of an eternal day appear, and all creatures and all things be light and life in the Lord.

JAMES CROSS, Esq.

May 2, at Exeter, JAMES CROSs, Esq., who through a lengthened life sustained a consistent character for uprightness and integrity of conduct and inflexibility of principle. He was a faithful friend and a liberal benefactor to those institutions which tended to cherish the growth of civil and religious liberty. As he was firmly persuaded that Unitarianism was the doctrine of the gospel, he was always prepared to avow and to maintain his opinion; and few, whose time was not especially devoted to the