of words, we had misinterpreted the meaning of the sacred writer; in the former case we should have no reasonable ground for such a suspicion. The first passage which shall be considered, is that in the sixth chapter of the epistle to the Hebrews, which is as follows:—“ 1. Therefore, leaving the principles of the doctrine of Christ, let us go on unto perfection, not laying again the foundation of repentance from dead works, and of faith toward God ;-2. Of the doctrine of baptism, and of laying on of hands, and of resurrection from the dead and of eternal judgment.-3. And this will we do, if God permit.-4. For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost,5. And have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come,-6. If they fall away to renew them again unto repentance." St. Ambrose remarks upon this text, that "it means the imposition of hands which is supposed to confer the Holy Ghost, which is ordinarily given by the chief priests or bishops after baptism, for the confirmation of men in the unity of the church of Christ.' St. Chrysostom, more at length, observes upon the doctrines enumerated in this passage, " that all these are fundamental articles; that is, that we ought to repent from dead works, to be baptized into the faith of Christ, and be made worthy of the gift of the Spirit, who is given by imposition of hands; and we are to be taught the mysteries of the resurrection and eternal judgment. This catechism is perfect; so that if any man have faith in God, and, being baptized, is also confirmed, and so tastes the heavenly gift, and partakes of the Holy Ghost, and, by hope of the resurrection, tastes of the good things of the world to come; if he falls away from this state, and turns apostate from this whole dispensation, digging up these foundations, he shall never be built again, he can never be baptized again, and never be confirmed any more; God will not begin again, and go over with him again; he cannot be made a Christian twice."+ ALPHA. (To be continued.) ON THE MARRIAGE AND REGISTRATION ACTS. SIR,-After all the fears which many wise and excellent persons have expressed concerning the Marriage Bill, and that for the Registration of Births, I confess that, on a perusal of the acts of parliament, I am agreeably disappointed. If I rightly interpret the Marriage Act, I should be inclined to call it one for the relief of the clergy; and, in regard to both, see reason to hope that they may, under God's blessing, if the clergy are true to themselves and to their vows, be instrumental towards the restoration of somewhat of our decayed discipline; and if so, then Satan will be foiled with his own weapons, Ambros. in Heb. vi. 2, cited by Bingham, book xii. c. 3, s. 6. and that which he designed for evil work directly for good to them that love God. First, in respect to the Marriage Act, that my reasoning may be better understood, I would observe, that the receiving the rites of the church is a privilege and a blessing, which they only can claim who are members of the church, and considered by it as worthy of them— that for the ministers of the church to bestow these blessings upon aliens and schismatics, upon the revilers of God's heritage, still more upon those who have not even professed to enter into covenant with God, is a failure of fidelity on their part, as stewards of the mysteries of God-a saying Peace, peace, when there is no peace, and a profanation of holy things, in disregard (so it seems) of the express injunction of our Lord-" Give not that which is holy unto the dogs;" in accordance with which injunction was the maxim of the ancient church, "sancta sanctis"- that to compel such administration is tyranny, and a violation of the conscientious liberty of the church; that, on the other hand, to compel those who hate religion and the church to receive the sacred rites, is likewise tyranny, and a violation of the liberty of the subject. Under the old Marriage Act, this twofold tyranny was enforced against the clergy, and against the aliens from the church. These last, who reviled God's church, as too unholy for them to worship in, were compelled to receive its rites as the only means of securing the recognition of their marriages as lawful, and the inheritance of their children; while, on the other hand, such grievous civil penalties as illegitimacy and disinheritance being annexed to the withholding the sacred rites, the clergy who withheld them were liable to civil actions; through fear of which, and for peace' sake, they complied with the unreasonable and unjustifiable demand. By the present act, there is reason to believe, all this tyrannical interference in religion is at an end. The aliens from the church, of whatever description, are no longer compelled to receive the rites of the church, in order to make their marriages valid, and their children capable of inheriting their property; nor (I conceive) are the clergy any longer compellable to admit to the privileges of the church those whom the church counts unworthy of them. Nor does it appear by the act, as it now stands, (for the amendment of which the clergy cannot be too thankful to the House of Lords, for nothing could exceed the wanton tyranny of the provisions in the bill when sent up from the House of Commons,) that there is any compulsory interference with the discipline of the church, in respect to the celebration of marriages. By the rules of the church of England, the clergy are expressly forbidden to celebrate any marriages except by banns, or under episcopal licence. Thus, canon 62"No minister, upon pain of suspension, per triennium, ipso facto, shall celebrate matrimony between any persons, without a faculty or licence, granted by some of the persons in these our constitutions expressed; except the banns of matrimony have been first published three several Sundays, &c." Who "the persons in these our constitutions expressed," as capable of granting licence for marriage in the church of England, are, is stated in canon 101. "No faculty, or licence, shall be henceforth granted, for solemnization of matrimony betwixt any parties, without thrice open publication of banns, according to the book of Common Prayer, by any person exercising any ecclesiastical jurisdiction, or claiming any privileges in the right of their churches; but the same shall be granted only by such as have episcopal authority, or the commissary for faculties, vicars general of the archbishops and bishops, &c." The new act of parliament does not interfere with these: it expressly provides that "all the rules prescribed by the rubric, concerning the solemnizing of marriages, shall continue to be duly observed by every person in holy orders of the church of England, who shall solemnize any marriage in England; provided always, that where by any law, or canon, in force before the passing of this act, it is provided that any marriage may be solemnized after publication of banns, such marriage may be solemnized in like manner, on production of the registrar's certificate, as hereinafter provided; provided also, that nothing in this act contained shall affect the right of the Archbishop of Canterbury, and his successors, and his and their proper officers, to grant special licences to marry at any convenient time or place, or the right of any surrogate, or other person now having authority, to grant licences for marriages." All that the act of parliament says more than our canons is, that the civil legislature will hold a marriage under the registrar's licence to be as valid as under an episcopal licence; and that it will not punish a clergyman who shall so celebrate it. But that the clergy of the church of England shall be compelled, in violation of the discipline of their church, to administer its rites contrary to its rules, is nowhere said. Such monstrous tyranny has not been expressed; it cannot therefore be enforced. The only inconvenience to which the clergy will be exposed under this act is, that they will be obliged to keep a double register of marriages, and to return copies quarterly instead of once a year. This, after all the alarm which has been entertained and expressed, is indeed hardly worth naming. There is little reason to suppose that the fees of the clergy, in populous places, will be materially affected by the alteration. They who hate the church will, indeed, cease to pay for services which they despise, or affect to despise; but few conscientious clergy would wish to continue to sell the holy things of the church for the money of such persons. As for our own members, a marriage by episcopal licence in the church will be no dearer. A marriage by banns will be cheaper than one before the registrar; whose licence, sec. 22, is five shillings, and marriage before him another five. It may help to reconcile some persons to the alteration of the law to be informed, that the necessity for religious rites, and the sacerdotal benediction, in order to give validity to a marriage, dates in the west no higher than 780, and was not enforced in the east till 900.-See Bingham's Antiquities, book xxii. c. 4. s. 3. The church, therefore, in this respect, is now no worse off than she was in the days of her greatest lustre, Next, let the more important act for registration be considered. I call it more important, because the sacrament of baptism, which is apparently affected by it, is of more importance than the nuptial benediction. The long and short of the act, as it affects baptism, is simply this, that a child shall not be compelled to receive Christian baptisin, in order to have its birth and existence recognised by the civil authorities. But it is nowhere said that the ministers of the church shall be compelled to admit persons to Christian rites upon the strength of the civil registration. Neither confirmation, nor the eucharist, nor the nuptial benediction, nor Christian burial, can be claimed by those who do not enter the church by the waters of baptism. The extent, therefore, to which this act will operate, to the disuse of baptism, will rest, under God's blessing, on the fidelity of the clergy. If they act as if baptism were of no consequence, and admit to Christian privileges the unbaptized and the baptized alike, they chiefly, if not only, will be to blame; and it will be the fruit of their own work if the initiatory sacrament of our religion is treated as a thing indifferent, and not the nation only, but that which is called the church, actually cease to be Christian. But if the clergy are faithful to their trust, then all who value the blessings and rites of the church, either for themselves or for their children, will take care to secure their title to them by entering in by the appointed door; while they who despise these privileges cannot complain that they are not allowed to receive rites for which they have wilfully refused to qualify themselves. The practical operation of the Registration Act upon the clergy, in the case of burials, is simply this, that we are liable to a penalty of ten pounds if we perform religious rites at the burial of a corpse without the registrar's certificate. This is a mere civil arrangement, which does not, in the remotest degree, invade our spiritual functions. By sec. 49 it appears, that our ecclesiastical registers will still be recognised by the law. There is an alteration in the form of the coroner's warrant, which requires to be noticed and explained. Hitherto, the tenour of it has been, "these are to certify, that ye may lawfully permit the body to be buried." Now it is, "I order the burial of the body." This might, at first sight, seem an interference with our spiritual functions, seeing that many persons may have an inquest over them who, from one or more of the causes mentioned in the rubric, are disqualified from receiving the rites of the church. But by sec. 27 it appears, that by "burial" here is only meant interment; the coroner's "order" for burial is merely that the corpse shall be committed to the ground, and does not extend to any religious service over it. In the section last cited, the distinction between burial and the performing any religious service for the burial is plainly marked. We are as free, therefore, as we were before, to withhold religious rites where the rules of the Christian church require them to be withheld. Upon the whole, I think both acts calculated to impress upon the members of the church of England a truth, which our late position has tended to put out of remembrance; that truth is, that we are a VOL. X.-Nov. 1836. 4 E religious, and not merely a civil, community; and that the bands that must keep us together must be those of spiritual authority, and not merely acts of Parliament. Another probable consequence is, that the integrity of our ecclesiastical body being now left to depend upon the maintenance of its own discipline, without which the whole will soon crumble to pieces, the attention of the clergy will be drawn to the rules which the church has provided for that discipline; and perhaps the episcopal rulers may find it necessary to revise and reconsider the same, that the intentions of the church may be more clearly understood, and the principles of its discipline be distinctly perceived. Ground for apprehension I see none: we are but where the church was before the time of Justinian; or rather, I should say, I hope we are approaching that condition, when civil penalties were not annexed to ecclesiastical censures; and consequently, the rulers of this world had no pretext for interfering with the government of Christ's kingdom. It is probable, indeed, that the rules which the church found necessary then, she will find necessary again; but we have also reason to hope that what was found sufficient then, will be found sufficient now, seeing that our rulers have the same apostolic commission which theirs had, and the same promise of the Saviour's presence in the exercise of the same. The great difficulty will be found to be in the paucity of our bishops, who will be constrained either to slur our discipline, or else to delegate to their archdeacons and rural deans more power than it will probably be found convenient to entrust to any under episcopal rank. But when the evil presses, men will probably be glad to find a remedy for it. In the meantime, it is a waste of words to talk about it. I am Sir, your obedient servant, ALPHA. RITES AND CEREMONIES. SIR,-Will "Philalethes" allow me to observe, that he has misconceived the purport of my remarks in your March number. My design was, not to assist Mr. Poynder, in his attempt to establish a conformity between the Roman church and heathenism, but to animadvert on some of the practices of that church, which your correspondent conceived (as I thought, and still think, érroneously,) to be not prohibited in the New Testament. With respect to the passages, Heb. x. 8, 9, and Gal. v. 1, which I conceive (Philalethes thinks, incorrectly,) to militate against some of the Romish ceremonies, my remarks shall be brief. (Heb. x. 9.) "He taketh away the first (i. e., the Levitical sacrifices and offerings) that he may establish the second," (i. e., that he may do the will of God.) The offering of gifts and sacrifices the apostle speaks of in the ninth chapter and ninth verse, as imposed until the time of reformation, or, as Theophylact says άχρι της του Χριστου παρουσίας του μέλλοντος διορθωσασθαι ταυτα και την ἀληθινην και πνευματικην λατρειαν ἐπεισαγαγειν. If our Lord had intended that any rites, besides the two Christian |