Original Correspondence. THE MARRIAGE ORDINANCE QUESTION.

New Zealander, Volume 5, Issue 344, 21 August 1849, Page 2

Original Correspondence. THE MARRIAGE ORDINANCE QUESTION.

To the Editor of the New Zealander, Sir,— The result of the late Memorial! on the subject of the existing Marriage Ordinance, it matter for congratulation among the friends of civil and religious liberty. Now tbat the whole world seems to be Strug' gling for political and religious freedom, the liberality of sentiment that 10 generally pervaded the sprechei of the members of Council yesterday wai quite in keeping with the spirit of the times. There were, however, two or three point* referred to during the discussion, on which I feel called upon to remark. It would appear, from statements made by an honourable and learned member, that the religious bodies complaining of a grievance had been remiss in watching their interests. But a reference to reports of proceedings at the time will show that those religions bodies aguimt unequal privileges being granted, and asked the Council to secure "to all Christian denominations their juit rights." The

Colonial Secretary declared in Council thai " the principle involved in the Bill was nothing less than ons which went to give superiority to one Church in the Colony over others, and to this he objected." The Colonial Treasurer, too, " objected to the pi inciple of the bill, on account of the preference! which, it manifested to one denomination of the Chriitian church over all others." " And he could not admit the principle that it should, by any act of that Council be unduly elevated above other sections of the Christian Church. Believing that the present Bill was calculated to sow seeds tending to raise invidious retisrious distinctions in the Colony, and conceiving that for all the proper purposes required, a better bill might be introduced, he would beg to move that the bill be read on that d.iy six months." It therefore appears that, if as much disposition had existed on a former occasion to place all religious denominations on an equality in the Ordinance, hi vvai evinced yesterday, the bill, I humbly conceive, would not bave passed in its present form. As to objections felt by an honourable and learned member to certain words in the Memorials, I tliink it not difficult to show, that those objection* were ground* less. The word •' confer" was objected to. I ana ready to grant that it might hay« been more verbally correct to have said, the Ordinance is partial, because it leaves two Churches in possession of their former privileges, and withdraws from other churchet the privileges they had previously enjoyed ; and when the memorialists says that it " confer* upon two churches privileges that are withheld from other cbwrchrs," they do but express the same idea in different words. Their intention was to skow, that an invidious distinction was created, and whether the word confer, applied to the favoured churches, or the word withdraw, applied to the churches excluded, is employed, the conclusion is the ian»e — some arc placed by the Ordinance above others. Wli.it the honourable and learned member's objections to the use of the word " church" throo^hone the Memorials may be I do not know, but certainly I think that the miinner in which he referred to this subject, after all, savoured too much of the spirit ofc' eiclusivism that so lamentably prevails among a certain party in the Anglican Church at the present day. The unchwrhing of all Christian denominations that do not approve of the Epi»copal form of church government has become rather too fashionable. Such a. doctrine does not appear to me to quadrate with the 19th Article of the Church of England, by which a; church is denned to be " a congregation of faithful men in the which the pure Word of God is preached, and the sacraments duly ministered according to Christ's ordinance, in all those things that of necessity are requisite to the same." Now I presume that the honourable member wil! not feel 'Jicposed, after the testimony he bore yesterday to the " virtues" and " respectability" of the Presbyterian and Wesleyan communities, to lay, that these bodies do not respectively present " a congregation of faithful men," or th.it they do not "preach, the pure Word of God," or tins the Sacraments are not " duly ministered" among them according "to Christ's ordinance," some of which he must deny, or be prepared to allow, that in calling themselves churches they have but assumed the name to which they are strictly and scrip'urally entitled, and which, ac«« cording (o the Articles ot his own Church, fairly belongs to them. The remarks of the honourable member have cast; light upon a bubject that J have been unable to explain. When the Attorney-General proposed in Council thic the body to which I belong should be recognised in the Bill, he properly designated us "The We&layan Church ;" but to my great surprise, when the icnedula was published, we stood as " Wesleyan Methodut Society." Some one or other hsving taken the very great liberty to alter the form of the Attorney-Gene-ral's amendment, by substituting the word Society for Church. I think I can now understand the circunv stance. I am glad, however, that the Council has favourably reg Aided our memorials. Now the Government stand pledged to amend the law relating to marriages at the next Session of General Council, and to place nil religious denomintitions in the Colony on equal ground in the matter. For the present some of the practical difficulties are to be removed by appointing certain ministers to be deputy-registrars ; not that any who may for or accept f<uch an appointment would feel honoured by it, or that it would place them in their proper position ; but they may be willing, as ministers, to he appointed pro tern, that their congregations may be at once reneved from the great disabilities under which they have been placed. On the whole we feel, that after so much disposition as the Council displayed to listen to and grant our prayer, and the strong aisu ranee that the law could not be interfered with by the Council during the present Sesiion, it would be ungenerous to presi the matter further for the present.— Yours, &c, Tiros. Buddie. Auckland, August 15, 1849. [We should apologise to our Correspondent for the delay in the publication of this letter, which hat been some days in type; but notwithstanding our issuing three papers weekly, we still (especially during the sittings of Council) find om selves straitened for space. This has compelled the frequent abridgment, and sometimes the omistion of comments of our own on various subject!.— Ed.]