elect "some able and honest person" to be the "parish register."

Now in connection with this new law there is a curious fact recorded by Captain Graunt, a Fellow of the Royal Society, "that until the year 1642, the burials were but equal with the christenings, or near thereabouts; but in 1648, when the differences in religion had changed the government, the christenings were but two-thirds of the burials. And in the year 1659, not half, viz. the burials were 14,720, (of the plague but 36,) and the christenings were but 5670." This therefore proves, beyond doubt, that not one half of the people, at that period, attached any importance to the ordinance of infant baptism as such, and having obtained a civil registry, the religious rite, with which it was so unwisely joined, fell into neglect.

Anti-pædobaptist opinions, we imagine, are by no means so influential in this country now as they were in the days of the Commonwealth, yet, as an enlightened scriptural adherence to the ordinance of infant baptism, has fallen very far short of its ceremonial observance, so we must expect that now the secular motive to conformity is removed, it will be found, as Mr. Finlaison states, that "a number, far from inconsiderable, are reckless of baptism, and devoid of all common religious rites."

Nor is the manner in which the Episcopal clergy practice and enforce this ordinance likely, in our opinion, to extend its observance; for, on the one hand, while they continue to receive fees for the administration or registry of baptism, they are exposed to the imputation of pleading for this rite with a view to their own pecuniary advantage, and on the other, were their fees renounced and their motives free from suspicion, their notions of its spiritual regenerating efficacy are not likely to be received by a people who can read and understand the doctrines of the New Testament. To save the ordinance of infant baptism, therefore, in the Church of England, it must in future be divested of all secular advantages, not only to the recipient, but to the administrator, and must be urged, not as a Popish sacrament, but as a seal of the covenant. But we must return from this digression to the second part of this valued document-we mean that which relates to marriages.

When it is recollected that the new marriage act was passed for the relief of the nonconformist communities of England and Wales, which amount to more than 8000 congregations of all denominations, it might have been expected that at least 7000 would have been registered for the performance of marriage. Such, however, we are ashamed to own, has not been the case.

Three years ago we computed the number of nonconformist chapels belonging to each denomination, and regarding that estimate as sufficiently correct for our present purpose, we insert it, with the numbers of chapels of each denomination that have been registered for the performance of marriage.

Burton's Parliamentary Diary, vol. i. p. 39. n.

+ Natural and Political Observations on the Bills of Mortality. 12mo. 1665.

N. S. VOL. III.

4 H

As our Wesleyan Methodist brethren are now so devoted to the interests of the Established clergy, we cannot wonder that not a thirtieth part of their chapels have been registered for the celebration of marriage. Amongst the older nonconformists, it will be seen that the Presbyterians have availed themselves most extensively of this privilege in proportion to their numbers, which was to be expected in a body which includes many Unitarians, who, of course, dislike the trinitarian character of the church service. But while more than half of the Presbyterian places are registered, we regret to record that not one-third of the Independent chapels, and of the Baptist chapels not one fourth in the kingdom, have been registered! So that during the year ending June 30th, 1838, there were only 4,280 nonconformist marriages, while there were 107,201 according to the rites of the Established Church.

Now as this proportion may be imagined by some persons unacquainted with the feelings of dissenters on this subject to supply an index to the relative numbers of churchmen and dissenters, it will be necessary to enter upon some explanations.

It cannot be denied that the resolution of the government to retain the provision of the 6th section of the Act for Marriage, which orders the publication of banns at the Board of Guardians of the Poor, at their weekly meetings, on three successive weeks, was felt by many dissenters to be an insult, and is resented as such. That it has been employed for that purpose, must be acknowledged by all who have read the High Church and Tory periodicals, whether diurnal or quarterly; and it is greatly to be deplored that what Her Majesty's liberal government intended as a generous concession, should be regarded as a gratuitous insult.

We must, however, remind our somewhat sensitive friends that the publication of banns at the parish church is no very pleasant process, supplying, as it does, news for all the gossips in the parish, and that, as under the old law, -respectable persons escaped from this exposure to the criticisms of their busy neighbours by obtaining a licence, so dissenters may now escape from the thrice repeated announcement at the Board of Guardians, and in most cases altogether, by obtaining a license of the Superintendent-Registrar. But here the jealousy with which dissenters regard every thing that trenches, however slightly, on perfect civil equality, again meets us. "A licence from the bishop," say our friends, "would permit of an immediate marriage, without any publication at all, but a license from the RegistrarGeneral requires, if practicable, one notice at the Board of Guardians,

and the lapse of seven days before the marriage can be consummated. Thus an advantage is given to the churchman, which the dissenter ought equally to enjoy." We entreat our dissenting brethren not to seek equality with churchmen in evil. The system of episcopal license is essentially vicious and ought to be corrected, and it would have been unworthy of the patriotism and intelligence of the dissenting gentlemen who corresponded with government on these enactments, had they required that the new law should be deformed by a clause so favourable to illicit marriages.

A case recently appeared in a weekly paper that will illustrate this. An opulent Jew gave notice of a marriage by license to the Superintendent-Registrar of the Strand Union district, with a lady of the Israclitish nation. During the seven days which must elapse before a marriage can be consummated, even by license, the Superintendent received a notice from the secretary of the Jewish synagogue to which the parties belonged, stating that they were within the prohibited degrees of consanguinity ordained by the Mosaic, and confirmed by the canon law. The Superintendent informed the Jew of the objection, who did not therefore abandon his purpose, but repaired to Doctors' Commons, obtained the bishop's license, and the following morning was married to his Jewish bride, according to the rites of the Christian church! Who does not perceive in this transaction the superiority of the new to the old system, and the need there is of maintaining the former and of correcting the latter to preserve the laws of God and of the country inviolate?

Others have felt that the government ought not to have required a fee of three sovereigns for registering a place of worship, by which a tax amounting to about £4000 has been already imposed upon dissenting churches. There is another class who object to the place of worship being used for marriage, and choose to go to the office of the Registrar to contract it, but conscious that it would be very like an atheistical contract without any religious service at all, they make the Registrar's office for the time being a place of worship, by the performance of some acts of devotion there, which they have refused to perform at their own chapel.

While the high dissenters have refused to license many of their chapels on these and similar grounds, we regret to own that another party, who may be truly called low dissenters, affect to treat an act of occasional conformity to the rites of the established church as a very trifling affair, and therefore choose to sacrifice their consistency rather than hazard that gentility on which they greatly pique themselves. Surely individuals of this party have never reflected upon the false position they occupy, when they voluntarily bow at an altar they have renounced, and receive the rites of marriage at the hands of a clergyman whose ministry they have forsaken. How mean must such conformists for fashion sake appear in the eyes of such a clergyman, whose regard for a handsome gratuity must be the strongest, the only motive to restrain the open expression of his contempt. Besides, we conceive no well informed dissenter can reflect upon the form of words in which he will be required to address his bride without feeling that their lawfulness is extremely doubtful. " With

this ring I thee wed, with my body I thee worship, and with all my worldly goods I thee endow: IN THE NAME OF THE FATHER, AND OF THE SON, AND OF THE HOLY GHOST." These declarations are always equivocal and obscure, and often are known by the parties to be false, and combined as they are with a solemn formula, which was appointed by our divine Redeemer himself to be used in his ordinance of baptism alone, approach very near to that which is profane.

Then what can the pastor of these fashionable conformists think or feel at their conduct? Surely, if he possess a well-regulated mind, he will say, "These parties profess to value my instructions-to join in and to enjoy my prayers-they receive from my hands the memorials of the Saviour's love, and they solicit my advice in matters that affect their welfare; and now, when they are about to perform the most important act of their lives,-an act which assuredly should be sanctified by the word of God and prayer-an act at which the law of the land permits me, as their pastor, to preside, and to blend my sympathies and prayers with theirs,-they are about to drive to the parish church, because it will be thought more genteel!" Warm and frequent as the professions of regard to their pastor or to their principles may be, it is obvious that both will be abandoned rather than encounter what they imagine they shall have to endure," the world's dread laugh." But let such persons know that intelligent and thoughtful men respect consistency above all things. Who ever laughed at the wealthiest members of the Society of Friends because they drove to their own Meeting to contract their marriages rather than to "the Steeple House?" The laugh, they may be assured, is on the other side, when nonconformists affect gentility by a sacrifice of principle.

But we imagine some of our readers may protest that it is not for the sake of appearances, but because they have objections to the service at their own chapel that they propose to go to be wedded at church. Well, we will answer the only two reasons we have ever heard in defence of such conformity.

One is, that the Registrar is some mean person, whose share in the service is supposed to lessen the respectability of the wedding party. It is due to the Registrar-General to quote the following passage from his Report, which evinces a commendable anxiety that persons should be appointed as the Registrars of marriage who would be acceptable to their dissenting neighbours.

"I stated, moreover, that the Registrar of Marriages (unlike the Registrar of Births and Deaths, whose duties are applicable to the whole population within his district, without distinction of sect), will act almost exclusively in connexion with persons who do not conform to the Church of England;' that it is proper that this circumstance should be borne in mind in carrying into effect the provisions of the Act for Marriages in England;' and that I therefore recommended that, in their selection of fit persons for the office of Registrar of Marriages, they carefully consider whether they will be likely to conform to the spirit of that statute, and, in the faithful discharge of their duties, conduct themselves in a manner acceptable to those with whom they would be brought into contact and that they should not select persons whose acts or declared opinions might reasonably cause them to be regarded with unfavourable feelings by those at whose ordinances it would be their duty to attend."-p. 3.

These genteel folks, who shrink from contact with a Registrar of Marriages, because he may be a collector of taxes or what not, forget that when at church they are brought into equal contact with the parish clerk, and without pretending to disparage the members of an ancient and worshipful fraternity, we are prepared to challenge a comparison of the eight hundred registrars of marriage as to intelligence, moral character, and good standing in society, with an equal number of that body who are described by a term in its own nature contradictory, we mean the lay-clerks!

The other objection, and possessing equal force, is, that on such an occasion the parties would like to know what is to be said to them, and what they are to say. This they can learn beforehand in the Prayer Book, if they go to church; but if they are to be married at chapel, it will be left entirely to the discretion of the minister. This is not quite correct, for the Marriage Act prescribes the words of the declarations which the bride and bridegroom are to utter, so that it cannot be fairly alleged that the parties about to wed do not know what they will be required to say. And then as to what may be said to them by their respective pastors, we have only to observe, that if they can trust to their discretion in public addresses to God, they may surely rely on it in their addresses to their fellow-creatures. The rubrick of Edward VI. required that after the gospel in the marriage service there should" be a sermon, wherein ordinarily the office of man and wife shall be declared, according to Holy Scripture." It was, therefore, the judgment of the Fathers of the English Church that some scriptural exhortations should be addressed to the wedded parties. Now the habit of exhortation, which is early formed by dissenting pastors who are called to officiate at the administration of Baptism and the Lord's Supper, and at the burials of the dead, without the assistance of public formularies, assuredly fits them to deliver an address both scriptural in its character, and appropriate to the circumstances of the parties

concerned.

By these observations our readers will be able to account for the fact, that a great body of the dissenters have not availed themselves of the privilege which an enlightened parliament has conferred, and why they allow themselves to continue servile tributaries to that very order which has employed all the means in its power to deprive them of the right, or to pour contempt upon its exercise.

Were dissenters true to themselves, their social influence would be greatly increased. In the case before us, if they only displayed a becoming spirit, every chapel would be licensed for marriage, not only in the larger towns, but also in the villages. The consequence would be, that the first wedding at the meeting-house would practically explain to the surrounding rustics what at present they so little understand, that the dissenters are no longer that proscribed sect which the petty tyranny of parochial authorities have so often described them to be. Besides this, the ministrations of their pastors on an occasion so interesting, would bind still closer the connection between them, and especially at the marriages of the