whether doctrinal or practical, regarding marriage, while we hold it to be of a religious character. Proclamation of banns, which is one tie that connects it with religion, was, no doubt, "first introduced by the Lateran Council which was held in 1216," and the Council of Trent afterwards fixed the number of times the parties were to be proclaimed, and the places where the banns were to be published. But as there was nothing at variance with sound scriptural principles, and nothing but what was for the welfare of society in this arrangement," it was adopted by our reformers, and has ever since been observed by our Church." In "the Book of Common Order of the English Kirk at Geneva, where John Knox was minister, approved of by the famous and learned man, John Calvin, and received and used by the Reformed Kirk of Scotland," it was laid down that "the banns or contract should be published three several days in the congregation, to the intent that any person having interest or title to either of the parties, might have sufficient time to make their challenge." In "the First Book of Discipline," often quoted in other days by those now arrayed against us,- a work “drawn up by Messrs. John Winram, John Spottiswood, John Willock, John Douglasse, John Row, and John Knox, and presented to the nobility in 1560,"—and "sanctioned by the Church," though never formally and fully approved of by the civil authorities," it is also laid down that, "for avoiding of dangers, -expedient it is that the banns be publicly proclaimed three (several) sundays," &c. Now to make good the charge of Popery brought against the religious views of marriage entertained by our Church, so far as it may be founded on this practice, all these Protestant authorities must be brought in guilty, along with her. Nay, Dr. Candlish himself must stand convicted; for on the same occasion, when the charge was made, and when advocating the cause of this Bill, the only objection he is said to have had to it was,— "that the proclamation of banns might have been made in other places besides the Parish Church." Our objection however, is of a more serious nature,-viz: that the Bill does not require proclamation of banns at all, and that the rite is thereby stript of much of its religious character, and made a mere secular transaction, like any other merely civil contract. But there is more in it bearing the stamp of religion, than the proclamation of banns, according to the views of our Church. "The Confession of Faith" maintains that " marriage was ordained" (inter alia) "for the increase of the Church with a holy seed;" that "it is the duty of Christians to marry only in the Lord;" that "such as profess the true reformed religion should not marry with infidels, papists, or other idolaters; neither should such as are godly be unequally yoked, by marrying with such as are notoriously wicked in their life, or maintain damnable heresies;" nor should "those whom God has joined together in marriage be unduly put asunder." There is no rational interpretation that can be put on these expressions, unless they are to be understood to apply to it, as a religions rite-as a compact between the contracting parties, ratified by the sanctions of religion. What other sense is it possible to attach to the calling in of the services of the ministers of religion, to the prayers and benedictions uttered, and to all the forms of religion used, if the whole of these circumstances are not intended to give it a religious character? In every other religious denomination, too, employing the ministrations of its clergy and the forms of religion in the constitution of marriage, whatever its political creed may be, there is a stamp of religion impressed on this rite. Hence, among the people of all sects throughout the land, the general, if not the universal, feeling is, that it is a religious institution, and that the employment of religious forms is necessary to give it all the sanctions and respectability which it ought to have. Nay, even the civil law involves this view. It calls for the proclamation of banns, not in a market place, or place of mere secular concourse, but "in facie ecclesia," in the presence of a religious assemblage; for the services of a properly accredited clergyman to render it regular; and for the word of God to designate the parties to whom, in respect of consanguinity, marriage is to be allowed. If marriage were merely a civil contract, why should all these circumstances, implying religious considerations, be held to be necessary? Why should any relationship prevent the formation of the contract, or bigamy, or poligamy, or any other kind of contract be prohibited, if it were simply like those secular engagements which are daily entered into with all kinds of persons in the ordinary intercourse of life? These questions can never be properly answered without admitting the religious view of the subject. The idea of a properly constituted marriage carries along with it invariably the idea of religion also. There is nothing of Popery in this, but much of the best associations of life, and of the holiest feelings of the heart. But all this, the Bill before us disregards. It makes no difference between a religious and an irreligious marriage-between one celebrated with all the forms and observances of religion, in the face of the Church, and one that has not a single reference to any religious consideration whatever connected with it. It gives to both civil consequences and privileges, without distinction, and puts both on a footing of equality, as much as if they were both equally deserving of approbation. How is it possible that all this can happen, and religion pass unhurt? The best affections of the best part of society must be painfully wounded to see what is really the life, the light, and the happiness of man thus set aside and disregarded. The long established associations of the people's thoughts, by which the obligations of the marriage engagement have been sanctified and strengthened must gradually become impaired, and the checks to conjugal infidelity thereby be diminished. The great mass of the thoughtless having thus no fear of God set before them, when entering on this engagement, may feel no compunctions of conscience in violating it as soon as formed, as they do in other cases not fenced about by the solemnities of religion. And are not these considerations which ought to make any man pause, and be sure that he does not put them in danger, before he enters the British Senate with any measure bearing upon them? How much more, with such a Bill as this, which is clearly hostile to religion and the best interests of the country! As a mere aid to government, though no higher views were to be entertained, to countenance and encourage the employment of religion, in the constituting of this rite, would be sound policy. But such policy forms no part of this Bill, and having none of that element in it, it has no right to prosper. III. This Bill prevents the publicity with which marriage should be celebrated. The interests of society are so deeply concerned in the conjugal relations of life, that it has a right to know what contracts of that nature are entered into by its members, and, therefore, that these contracts should be rendered as public and unquestionable as possible. Hence it was, that the proclamation of banns in the parish Church, in the presence of the most numerous assemblage, in the place where the contracting parties reside, and that most likely to take notice of the proclamation, was made imperative by statute, and by the acts of our national Church. Nay, publicity, to a certain extent, is one object even of this bill itself. When the parties are not proclaimed before the congregation, it requires that “one or both of them shall reside fourteen clear days within the sub-district of the officiating Registrar, previous to the registration, and shall give to the Registrar of the sub-district, at least seven clear days previous to the registration, notice in writing of their intention to contract marriage. And if the parties reside in different sub-districts, notice shall be given to the Registrar of each sub-district; and the Registrar, or both Registrars, as the case may be, shall, on the first sunday after the receipt of such notice, publish the same by affixing a copy thereof upon the doors of the parish Church before the time of divine service in the forenoon." When such notice is produced to the Registrar, and the parties and two witnesses have signed his register, all the ends of publicity are considered as having been attained, and the marriage is held as duly constituted. But it requires little discernment to see that all this is matter, more of technical legal evidence that all the prescribed forms have been observed, than of the real publicity of the marriage itself. Parties may live as many months as the number of days here specified, in crowded districts, or remote localities, and not be known to twenty persons in the sub-district, or parish. They may give the requisite notices, and certificates to the Registrars, and the legal copies be affixed to the Church doors, and still not twenty people passing in and out may pay any attention to them, and know nothing about those whom they may concern. When the whole is completed before the Registrar, he may never mention their names beyond his office door; and the witnesses may be entire strangers, merely hired for the purpose, and may be equally oblivious, or may have even an interest in keeping the whole matter as secret as possible. The Registrar General, too, by his plenary powers, may shorten the process, and render the marriage still more private. Marriages, in which most important interests may be involved, may thus be smuggled through all the forms prescribed by the Bill, and individuals whom it most deeply concerns may not know, at the proper time, one item of the train of circumstances carried on and irrevocably completed. Publicity is one of our greatest safeguards in morals, politics, and the ordinary transactions of life, and as such has always been zealously advocated by the friends of popular opinion; and it is a matter of no small wonder to us that it should not have been more respected by the author and supporters of this Bill, who are well known to belong to that section of society. IV. This Bill does not seem calculated to answer the ends which it professes to have in view, as a measure of amendment. It facilitates and legalizes a class of marriages hostile to the best feelings and interests of society, and puts them, so far as civil consequences are concerned, on a footing of equality with those of the most respectable kind. Of this we have already had proof, in so far as we have seen that it removes the difficulties arising from long established usages in religion, and the publication of banns, and that it opens a way, even through the multiplication of forms, for the attainment of the ends desired by parties preferring clandestine to ecclesiastical contracts. This facility is increased by the character of the persons whom it authorizes to grant marriage to such parties. These are either laymen or clergymen, of whom no guarantee whatever, beyond an official title, is required. The Registrar may be facile, and if the parties wish to evade registration, there is nothing even in the 43d section of the Registration Bill itself, rendering it imperative and indispensable on him, to enter them into his Register, should they neglect, for two months, to present themselves before him for that purpose. It is merely provided, that it shall be competent" for him to take certain steps thereunto, not that he must do so. A heavy fine is to be laid on the parties if they do not comply with all the forms. But no provision is made for the levying of that fine; and as ample time is allowed within which they may pay it, wealthy persons may hold it light, and poor persons may remove and evade it, and evils as great as, or greater than, those at present complained of, remain unremedied. The minister to whom the parties may apply for 66 marriage, may be still more facile than the Registrar. By sections 2d and 6th of the Bill, they can apply to “ any clergyman, or minister of religion authorized to solemnize marriage, by the laws of the Church, or rules and. practice of the communion to which he belongs, whether belonging to the Established Church, or any other Church, or to ANY sect or persuasion, by whatever name or denomination known." Here are sufficient variety of choice, and extent of permission. They may apply to the lowest and loosest Socialist, bearing the name of a minister, and allowed by that licentious sect to marry parties who may desire marriage at his hands, and he may, without any difficulty, grant what they desire of him; and when done, what better is this than a justice of peace marriage, a Gretna Green marriage, or any other in the presence of witnesses? In addition to these facilities to legalized exceptionable marriages, and to these ways of evading the professed ends of the Bill, it is difficult to say what it is that constitutes marriage under this measure. By the first section, we are told, that "marriage shall be contracted in Scotland, by solemnization, in the presence of a clergyman, or by registration, and not otherwise." If this were not qualified by another part of the Bill, there would be no difficulty in understanding its meaning; for this is just the principle of the first edition of the Bill, which made simple registration itself to constitute marriage. That was so offensive an idea that, to meet the public feeling, it was altered, and now that part runs in these terms: "that in all cases the registration of marriage by parties contracting the marriage, signing the register, shall be conclusive evidence that the parties registering their marriage were married parties at the time of completing such registration." This may be regarded as a dexterous combination of words to get over the objection to simple registration, and yet constantly to retain it; and that such registration may really constitute marriage, may be the intention of the Bill. But taking the plain and obvious sense of the expressions, it seems difficult to bring out of them more than a mere matter of evidence, that the parties were married at the time of registration. It does not say that they were made married persons by signing the register, and only when they had signed it; but that they were at that time, actually married persons, and that the signing was nothing more than exclusive evidence of it. Then the question occurs, when did they become married persons, and what made them so? It could not be the notice sent to the Registrar, for that notice only expressed intention of what was to take place afterwards. The point of time, therefore, when they became married persons, must lie somewhere between the date of the notice, and the date of the registration, and what constituted their marriage must be something there. But, who, by any thing in the Bill, can ascertain either the one or the other? It may, consequently, be said, under this uncertainty, which the language of the Bill creates, as well as under the present state of the law, that many may not be able to say whether they be married or not. Nay, when all the intelligible requisites of this Bill have been duly observed, and no doubt remains on the mind, what does the general scope of the measure amount to, but this, that it is a countenancing and legalizing of irregular, imprudent, and often most ruinous engagements-exalting vice, clothing it with the mantle of law, setting it by the side of virtue, and calling on all to treat it well. It is a part of the lax legislation of the day, which boasts of a liberality that makes all creeds, and no creeds, and all sects and denominations equally entitled to the countenance of law; and is of the same kindred with that still more offensive measure, that climax of laxity, Mr. Wortley s Bill, to legalize the marriages of widowers with the sisters of their deceased wives-a measure hostile to the sacredness of domestic relationships, and calculated to lead to much guilt and misery, and one, therefore, which every friend to purity, to order, and humanity, - must deeply deplore. Such Bills are free trade, in principle and practice, with a vengeance, and should teach us all to feel more sensibly the danger of departing from the good old landmarks which the wisdom of our forefathers set up in better times. ORIGINAL POETRY. THE SPIRIT'S HOME. The Spirit's home! the Spirit's home! For thus, it would not wish to roam From the land which gave it birth. Behold! the deep shade of the solemn woods- The majestic hills with their snow-wreaths crown'd, To the hurricane blast, as it sweeps from the shore; Proud Spirit! is this not a home for thee? No! the loftiest things of earth, Like dreams must pass away And a thing of immortal birth, Must live where there's no decay! Oh! look on the glad and peaceful earth, A yet fairer home must be mine! There's a sweeter rest for me, On shores where eternal summers shine- |