from scripture. The above interpretation is offered as a first step towards bringing that fact into a general agreement with the revealed word of God. Dr. Nares, in his late work on "Man as known to us theologically and geologically," says:-"It cannot be dissembled that the Mosaic history, as it is commonly received, stands in the way of geologists. . . . . . I am at a loss to understand what the object can have been of delivering up this goodly planet to the sole use of a multitude of strange animals, for a great length of time, without any con. temporary beings of higher qualities."-(p. 210.) This is a difficulty which, perhaps, every one has experienced; yet, however inexplica ble the reason, the fact itself seems to be revealed, that races of ani. mals have possessed this earth which were never meant to be subservient to man. "And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle (behemoth) after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good. And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle (behemoth, such as elephants), and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth."Gen. i. 25. Thus to man was given dominion over flocks, and herds, and behemoth; but over the beasts of the earth, such power was not given. These beasts of the earth, then, may well be those geological monsters, over which, in life, man had no dominion; but, over whose remains, power has been given him to disquiet them, to bring them up, that they may proclaim their Maker's greatness, and authenticate his Word. W. B. WINNING.

Keysoe Vicarage, Beds.

MARRIAGE IN THE PRIMITIVE CHURCH.

SIR,-A stupid and malignant paragraph has been going the round of several of the periodicals, stating "that the presence of a priest, or other religious functionary, at the celebration of a marriage, or the intervention of the church was never thought of in the early ages, and never considered necessary till the time of the council of Trent." The object of the publication of such trash is clear; it pleases those who think every thing in the way of religion should be matter of private caprice, and that all ordinances ought to be quite subservient to human views. And it delights the libertine, who, seeing marriage regarded by religious men as only belonging to the civil magistrate, feels himself under less restraint when he would violate its sanctity.

I believe we must acquit the writer of gross falsehood, and only bring him in guilty of consummate ignorance. He has malice however in his composition, so that he deserves the severest censure for his attack; but a man who places the council of Trent in the wrong century is not likely to do much harm, so that we must mingle contempt with our reprehension. His dagger is poisoned, but he does not know how to wield it.

I have thought it would not be uninteresting to your readers to lay before them a few extracts from the early fathers, by way of shewing to what base (the word will out) lies our pseudo-philosophers resort. Gibbon set the example, but he had learning enough to enable him to veil his mis-statements from common readers, and to give some little trouble to learned men to ferret them out. But now-a-days they outGibbon Gibbon, and state at random any unblushing falsehood that may suit their purpose. The extracts I subjoin will shew this, and

serve for reference at a future time.

I quote first the great Bishop of Antioch, the companion of Polycarp, the disciple of the blessed Apostle St. John-the martyr Ignatius; he wrote about the year of our Lord 68, or little more than thirty years after our Lord's death. In his epistle to Polycarp (Patres Apostolici, ed. Amst., t. 11, p. 41) he says, "that the marriage may be in the Lord, and not in the flesh, the man and woman should consult the judgment of the bishop." This proves that "the intervention” of "an ecclesiastical functionary" was considered to be conducive to the marriage being in the Lord as early as the first century; and if we consider that the Christians were few and scattered, scarcely having formed churches, or received superiors, I think the testimony very strong.

But in the next century, when Christianity had "lengthened her cords and strengthened her staves," when she had assumed the regular appearance that she has ever since possessed, we find that Tertullian gives positive testimony that the church celebrated marriages with certain rites. He says, (lib. 2, ad uxorem, c 9, p. 282, edit. Rothomag. 1662,) "How can I describe the happiness of that marriage which the church approves, the OBLATION (viz. the celebration of the eucharistical sacrament) CONFIRMS, the angels proclaim when sealed, and the Father ratifies ?" To those who are acquainted with the customs of the primitive church I need make no observation; but to those who are not, I will observe that the administration of the Lord's supper formed an invariable part of every public service; and the word "oblation" clearly points out that there was a religious ceremony at every Christian marriage.

As it would be useless to give too many passages, I will merely observe, that about the year 369, the Bishop of Cæsarea, commonly called "the great St. Basil," in his 7th Homily in Hexaemeron (tom. I, p. 68, edit. Benedict., Paris,) says, "Let this bond of nature, this yoke, which is a yoke through, or by means of, the blessing, (ò dia rns evλoyias vyos,) unite together those who before were separated. The wife must bear with the husband, &c. &c." Can any thing be plainer?

Ambrose, a few years after, (379,) even calls marriage a sacrament; (lib. 1, de Abraham, c. 7, edit. Bened., Paris, tom. 1, p. 302.) And in his 19th Epistle (tom. 11, p. 814, edit. ibid.) there is this strong passage " "As marriage must be sanctified by the priest's sanction and blessing," (literally, by the priestly covering and blessing,*) "how can that be termed a marriage where this is no agreement of faith ?"

• Velamine sacerdotali, et benedictione sanctificare oporteat.

Pope Siricius, who succeeded Damasus in 385, and was a man of much piety, in one of his epistles (see Labbe's General Councils, tom. 2, p. 1019, the Paris edition), speaking of marriage, says, "That blessing which the priest imparts may be considered as a kind of sacrilege if it be attended with any transgression."

The greatest and most learned divine of this century, St. John Chrysostom, in his 18th sermon, (tom. 3, p. 195, ed. Benedict.) after stating, in glowing terms, that Jesus Christ should be present at every marriage, as he was at that in Cana, asks his hearers "To what purpose is it, that you call in a priest to crave a blessing, and the next day you commit wicked actions?"

I should think our worthy critic would be ashamed of his production when he reads such passages. But even if his face is covered with triple brass, the man who asserts that the church did not interfere in marriages till the council of Trent, (in 1545), must blush (how great soever the phenomenon of a "liberal" in religious matters blushing would be) when he reads the following passage. The third council of Carthage, in 398, in their 13th Canon on Ma trimony, give this order-"Where the parties are to receive the priest's blessing, let them be presented by their parents." (See Labbe's Councils, tom. 2, p. 1201, Paris edition.) This is no doubt the origin of the rubric in the Common Prayer Book, "The minister receiving the woman at her father's or friend's hands," &c. &c. (Solemnization of Matrimony.) A fair presumption, to say the least of it, that, in its principal features, the service of matrimony has remained the same, not about three hundred, as our critic would have it, but upwards of one thousand four hundred years!

In the next century proofs multiply. Pope Innocent the first (in a letter in Labbe's General Councils, tom. 2, p. 1261) even considers "the blessing which the priest gives in marriage is conformable to the law antiently appointed by God." Augustin calls marriage a sacrament frequently. "Non solum vinculum verum etiam sacramentum" is a frequent expression of the African bishop: see particularly the treatise on Faith and Works, cap. 7, tom. 6, p. 170, Benedictine edition. See also the same volume, p. 332 & 337, de bono conjuge; and also his 289th sermon, volume 5, p. 482, where he describes some who act before marriage so as "to be unworthy to receive the benediction with their bride"-. -"Benedictionem accipere cum sponsa sua,"

&c. &c.

St. Leo, called generally "the great St. Leo," holds similar language, (ep. 2, p. 408, edit. Quesnel, Paris.) And so does Cyril of Alexandria, in his epistle to the heretic Nestorius.-See Labbe's General Councils, tom. 3, p. 408.

But I am tired, and I fear you are so too; I will therefore only detain you one minute and ask you one question. There are certain men who profess to be primitive Christians, and to follow the footsteps of those of old in every respect: but these men hold that the civil

Assembled to settle certain points of discipline. It was the third held at Carthage, though called by some the fifth.

magistrate can make a lawful Christian marriage. They do not go to the bishop, as Ignatius directs, nor to the public service of the oblation with Tertullian, nor to receive the priest's benediction, as Basil, Ambrose, Siricius, Chrysostom, and Augustin tell us is essential, nor are they brought to the priest by their father and mother, as the 73 bishops at Carthage commanded. Moreover, Mr. Editor, these men blame all churches who do as the primitive churches did. Now can you tell me how, for shame sake, these men call themselves practisers of the primitive worship? If you can you'll oblige

Yours very truly, PHILOPATER.

ORDINATION SERVICES.

SIR,-The question relative to the Ordination Services mentioned in your answers to correspondents in the Number for January last, has led me to offer you a few remarks on that subject, not so much in the hope of giving a satisfactory answer to the inquiry, as with the view of exciting among your readers and correspondents an interest on the point in question.

There can be no doubt in a legal and historical point of view that those offices form a part of our "Book of Common Prayer," as it is usually termed, although in strictness those words only apply to the Morning and Evening service, as will be seen by reference to the Act of Uniformity, where every other part of the Prayer Book is separately specified. The history of the Ordination services is curious, and may not be generally known. They were composed in 1549, and in 1551 were declared, by Act of Parliament, to form a part of the Book of Common Prayer. On the accession of Queen Mary this Act was repealed, and the whole Book of Common Prayer condemned; but in the first year of her sister's reign, its authority and use were restored, by Act of Parliament, and an express declaration was made that the ordination services should be deemed a part of the public Ritual of the kingdom.

In the Act of Uniformity, the title of the Prayer Book stands thus, "The Book of Common Prayer, and Administration of the Sacraments, and other Rites and Ceremonies of the Church, according to the use of the Church of England; together with the Psalter or Psalms of David, printed as they are to be sung or said in Churches; and the form and manner of Making, Ordaining, and Consecrating of Bishops, Priests, and Deacons."

It is not very easy to see why one part of "the Book intituled" thus, should be omitted rather than another. The various offices and forms usually printed in the Prayer Book are here separately mentioned, and the Ordination services as specifically as any. The Prayer Book and Homily Society usually, I believe, inserts them, and that for Promoting Christian Knowledge sometimes, though more rarely, prints them in its Prayer Books.

It is much to be wished that a matter of such importance as the correctness, even in minor points, of our public Liturgy, could be bet

ter secured than it is. From what authorized copy the Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge prints its Prayer Books I know not, but in one of their octavo editions which was shewn me by the kindness of a friend, who had collated it with the cathedral copy at Canterbury, and marked the variations, the errata were incredibly numerous. One very common error, is to print the Collect called, “A Prayer that may be said after any of the former," at the end of the whole collection, whereas its proper place is before that for the Parlia ment; the intention being that it should not be used unless some one of the eight first is read: many clergymen, probably from this mistake in the book used by them, read it whenever either of the two latter is used. I am, sir, your obedient servant,

CLERICUS HEREFORDIENSIS.

LIBERALITY.

SIR, The idea which many of our moderns entertain of liberality seems to be a mixture of insincerity, ambiguity, indecision, and false shame. I am led to make this remark from the unjust accusations of illiberality and party spirit made against those of our clergy who conscientiously believe dissent to be sinful, and will not therefore, in their speeches at public meetings for religious purposes, acknowledge dissenters as forming a part of the visible Church of Christ. I am one who agree with that portion of our clergy. I pray against "all false doctrine, heresy, and schism," and I thus pray from my heart. That "schism" necessarily refers to outward disunion seems to me sufficiently shewn by the fact that "false doctrine" and "heresy" are mentioned separately, without having recourse to the ancient view of the church. In expressing this opinion I am actuated by no less charitable a spirit towards dissenters than they who express a contrary one, and am as ready to shew them any personal kindness in my power, but have yet to learn how speaking what he is persuaded is the truth has any thing to do with the liberality of a man's feelings, properly understood. We are told that we thus UNCHRISTIANIZE thousands. This is not true. I condemn quacks, but I do not therefore assert that all sick people die, excepting such as place themselves under an authorized physician, though they thus render themselves, humanly speaking, liable to death; which liability is, in itself, quite a sufficient motive to caution and circumspection with the wise and prudent.

I am, sir, with true respect,

Your faithful humble servant, T. A. A.

CONSECRATION FEES.

[The following letter is inserted with great reluctance, and in consequence of a charge made by the writer, against the Editor of the British Magazine, in consequence of the expression of that reluctance-that he wished to conceal abuses.

The matter is a very simple one. The bishops are annually accused in the dissenting and radical papers of taking enormous fees for consecrations. The answer has been repeatedly given, that, in most cases, these fees are absolutely nothing-in some cases, 21. 2s. ; and in this of Lichfield and Coventry, which is the highest, there VOL. VII.-March, 1835. 20