covered himself to-day in the eyes of the handmaids of his servants, as one of the vain fellows shameless ly uncovereth himself!" Dancing, it seems, was a sacred rite, and was usually performed by women. At that day, it was perverted from its sacred use by none but "vain fellows," destitute of shame. David vindicates himself from her irony, by saying, "It was before the Lord;" admitting, that had this not been the case, her rebuke would have been merited. 1 Sam. xviii. 6. On account of the victory of Saul and David over the Philistines, "the women came out of all the cities of Israel singing and dancing." Psal. cxlix. 3: "Let them praise his name in the dance."-Psal. xxx. 11: "Thou hast turned for me my mourning into dancing." The deliverance here spoken of was a recovery from sickness, and the dancing an expression of religious gratitude and joy. Exod. xxii. 19: "As soon as he came nigh unto the camp, he saw the calf and the dancing." From this it appears that dancing was a part also of idol worship. Jer. xxxi. 4.: "Oh virgin of Israel, thou shalt again be adorned with thy tabrets, and go forth in the dances of them that make merry." This passage predicts the return from captivity, and the restoration of the Divine favour, with the consequent expression of religious joy. Matt. xi. 17: "We have piped unto you, and ye have not danced; we have mourned unto you, and ye have not lamented." That is, nei ther the judgments nor the mercies of God produce any effect upon this incorrigible generation. They neither mourn when called to mourning by his providence; nor rejoice with the usual tokens of religious joy, when his mercies demand their gratitude. Luke xv. 25: "Now his elder son was in the field; and as he came, and drew nigh unto the house, he heard music and dancing." The return of the prodigal was a joyful event, for which the grateful father, according to the usages of the Jewish church, and the exhortation of the Psalmist, "praised the Lord in the dance." Eccles. iii. 4: "A time to mourn and a time to dance." Since the Jewish church knew nothing of dancing, except as a religious ceremony, or as an expression of gratitude and praise, the text is a declaration, that the providence of God sometimes demands mourning, and sometimes gladness and gratitude. Matt. xiv. 6: "But when Herod's birth-day was kept, the daughter of Herodias danced before them, and pleased Herod." In this case, dancing was perverted from its original object, to purposes of vanity and ostentation." Job xxi. 7: “ Wherefore do the wicked live, become old, yea, are mighty in power?"-Verse 11: They send for their little ones, like a flock, and their children dance. They spend their days in wealth, and in a moment go down to the grave. Therefore they say unto God, Depart from us, for we desire not the knowledge of thy ways. What is the Almighty, that we should serve him; and what profit shall we have if we pray unto him?" Their wealth and dancing are assigned as the reason of their saying unto God, "Depart from us," and of their not desiring the knowledge of his ways, or of serving him or praying to him. From the preceding quotations, it will sufficiently appear . 1. That dancing was a religious act, both of the true and also of idol worship. 2. That it was practised exclusively on joyful occasions, such as national festivals or great victories. 3. That it was performed by maidens only. 4. That it was performed usually in the day time, in the open air, in high-ways, fields, or grovės. 5. That men who perverted dancing from a sacred use to purposes of amusement, were deemed infamous. 6. That no instances of dancing are found upon record in the Bible, in which the two sexes united in the exercise, either as an act of worship or amusement. 7. That there is no instance upon record, of social dancing for amusement, except that of the "vain fellows," devoid of shame; of the irreligious families described by Job, which produced increased impiety, and ended in destruction; and of Herodias, which terminated in the rash vow of Herod, and the murder of John the Baptist. I congratulate you, sir, on the assured hope which you seem to have attained, that you are a “ true Christian," and on the meekness and modesty with which you have been able to express it; and most sincerely do I join with you in the condemnation of all "bypocrites." I am affectionately yours, &c. REVIEW OF NEW PUBLICATIONS. THE new Marriage Act, the title of which we have just given, commenced its operation on the 1st of September. That part of it, indeed, which had the effect of repealing the well-known clauses in the statute passed about seventy years ago, had been in operation since July 22d; but the new enact ments only then became effective. On the awkward interval which was thus occasioned we purpose to remark presently; but as our readers have been promised an abstract of the provisions of the new statute, we think it may not prove unacceptable to them to give, in addition to this, a brief outline of the nature and policy of our marriage laws; and to state the history, reasons, and provisions of the old statute, part of which is now no longer in force, that thus they may more clearly see the objects intended to be secured by the new enactments. In reference to marriage itself, it needs scarcely be remarked, that it is the most important of all the contracts in which mankind can be engaged. The abstract reasoner will tell us that essentially it is neither more nor less than a contract for the participation of certain advantages, to which the joint fulfilment of certain duties is attached. That it is in its origin a contract of natural law, is pérfectly clear, for it is the parent, not the child, of civil society. "Principium urbis, et quasi seminarium reipublicæ." (Cic. de Offic. lib. i. c. 17.) It becomes a civil contract, when in civil society its forms are matters of legal regulation, and the fulfilment of its obligations is attended with civil consequences. But we cannot but think that this view, under which the subject is usually presented to us, is a less interesting, sacred, and lofty one, than it deserves. Marriage, as we learn from the Scripture,was of Divine appointment, and was the last, the noblest, and the best of all the temporal gifts of God to man. Our forefather was placed in Eden, a paradise of sweets; God had made all nature (6 Beauty to his eye, And music to his ear;" all the creatures were placed at his controul, and his Creator himself came down in the cool of the day to hold converse with him. All seemed perfect. Man complained not, but was thankful. Yet Divine mercy discovered that his habitation was silent, and himself solitary. His Creator's voice was again heard, pronouncing, "It is not good for man to be alone: I will make him a help meet for him." And the result of this tender regard of God for the good of his creature, was the formation of Eve; "And God brought her to the man, and they two became one flesh." It is not our intention to enter at large on the beneficial effects resulting from a connexion of this nature. They are abundantly evident in the pleasures of conjugal affection, the incitements to industry, the diminution of the cares of life, and the thousand other solaces which have justified the oft-repeated reference to domestic happiness, as the "only bliss of Paradise that has survived the Fall;" and the above observations were only made to endeavour to elevate a little higher the somewhat low definitions usually given of a connexion in itself so important and interesting *. It is not a little in aid of our remark, that in almost all nations the formation of this contract has been associated with some kind One of the most just and attractive views which we have seen taken of this union, is one in the Sermons of a modern French writer. "L'union conjugale est l'union de deux êtres immortels dans les sentiers etroits de la vertu,de la foi,qui donneront le jour à des enfans, coheritiers du ciel, et se sont chargés de la belle et difficile tâche de les garantir des ecueils, de les armer contre les perils, et de former leur âme pour Dien et pour l'eternité, Qu'elle est grave cette union!" &c. of religious ceremony. The marriage of Boaz and Ruth, mentioned in the Scriptures, was accompanied by prayers and blessings. (Ruth iv. 2.) The Egyptian marriages were celebrated in the temple of Isis. The Greeks made supplications to express deities who presided over marriage. The Romans consulted the auspices. The primitive Christians always employed religious ceremonies; and when, in the year 780, this good custom had declined, Charlemagne made a decree enjoining its observance. We see nothing unnatural in this. It is an attempt to add to the force of a sacred obligation by the solemnity of a vow to God. The institution of the canonical hours was another attempt of the Church to rite: it was not to be celebrated stamp its own sacredness on the after meals, but the parties were to be joined by a priest, and fasting. Still more natural was it, that, in the views and system of religion which after that period prevailed in Eu rope, to its civil a very decisively relithis contract should superadd gious character, and become specially subject to ecclesiastical cognisance. The Church, however, did too much in elevating it to the dignity of a sacrament; and the wisdom of the Canon Law (in which, by the way, there is not a little that merits the name of wisdom) is discoverable in distinguishing between the advantage and the necessity of the sanction of the church. was, and still is, for marriage to However expedient it receive that sanction, the contract may be valid and perfect without it†; and although Pope Innocent the * Hooker says, "The bond of wedlock hath always been more or less esteemed as thing religious or sacred. The title which the very Heathens do thereunto oftentimes give, is holy (rus iegus yaμus); and the rites instituted in the solemnization of marriage the Hebrews term by the name ‘Kedushim," or sanctification."" Eccl. Pol. b. v. + See Gibson's Codex, tit. 22. Third had ordained the celebration of marriage in the church, yet it was not till the celebrated Coun cil of Trent, in 1563, that the intervention of a priest was required as of necessity for its validity; and even then, in the absence of the religious solemnity, the marriage was not impeached. Although the Church had prescribed a formulary for the celebration of "holy matrimony," and her censures were denounced against irregular celebrations, yet the law tolerated less public modes of establishing the matrimonial union than those "in facie ecclesiæ;" although, in cases where any circumstances rendered necessary an appeal to the ecclesiastical courts for the fulfilment of the marriage obligations, or the loosening its bond on account of the breach of the nuptial vow, the inconvenience of these irregularities was felt, because the Church could not interfere to protect and enforce a bond which itself had not sealed. The only interruption of the authority of the Church in this matter, that has taken place in the his tory of England, is the remarkable one in the days of the usurpation of Cromwell, in 1653. The extra ordinary Act which passed in that year, entirely took away the cognisance and celebration of marriage from the hands of the clergy, and vested them in those of the justices of the peace: but this was one of the wild dictates of anti-ecclesiastical fury with which that age was replete. The marriages celebrated in this manner were rendered valid by an Act passed in the time of King Charles II. It is not unworthy of notice, that, even with all the ambition displayed at that period to merge the spiritual in the civil part of the contract, there seems to have been a dread of dismissing all the sanction which religion affords to its celebration; for, in the words which were framed for use on occasion of these marriages before justices of the peace, an appeal is directed to be made to the Searcher of hearts." The private modes of contracting marriage, which we have alluded to, were two-fold: either by what was technically called verba de presenti, that is, an immediate consent to become busband and wife; or per verba de futuro, a promise to become so at an after-period. The qualifying age of consent was in the man 14, and the woman 12 years t. We have already remarked, that the contract per verba de presenti was by the Canon Law regarded as valid matrimony. Instances have been mentioned, in the reports of the decisions in the eeclesiastical courts, where a second marriage has been annulled on account of the existence of such a pre-contract. The account of it in the Decretals is as follows. "Si inter virum et mulierem legitimusconsensus interveniat de præsenti, ità quod unus alterum, mutuo consensu verbis consuetis expresso, recipiat, utroque dicente: Ego te in meam accipio; et Ego te accipio in meum; vel alia verba consensum exprimentia de præsenti; sive sit juramentum interpositum sive non:> which we allude is this. "The man, * That part of Cromwell's Rubric to taking the woman by the hand, shall distinctly pronounce these words; I, A. B., do here, in the presence of God, the Searcher of hearts, take thee, C. D., for my wedded wife; and do also, in: the presence of God, and of these witnesses, promise," &c. &c. &c. The woman was to say the same. Two curious provisions are attached to that words of the contract are to be dis Act: that in case of dumb persons, the pensed with; and in case of persons who have no hands, they may join hands: (we suppose arms) but so we have seen it printed several times. "Requiritur enim in contrahere volentibus, ætas completa." (Lyndwood.) -An attempt was afterwards made to but it was not established. The ætas by change the age of consent to 16 and 14, the French law is 18 and 15. "L'homme avant dix-huit ans revolus, la femme avant quinze ans revolus, ne peuvent contracter mariage." non liceat alteri ad alia vota transire: quod si fecerit secundum matrimonium de facto contractum, separari debet, et prima in suá firmitate manere."-Decret. lib. iv. tit. 1, cap. 31. The distinction between this and the contract per verba de futuro, was, that in the former the parties deliberately accepted the relation of husband and wife, and were considered as immediately entering on the duties of that relation; whereas the latter was the contract of parties not presumed by law capable of the contract de præsenti (of the man, from 7 to 14, and of the woman to 12 years of age); and the promise looked to a time to come; so that the marriage it contemplated might never, in fact, take place. It is abundantly clear, both from law and history, that in more remote periods such early marriages were contracted as in later times were neither attempted nor thought of. They are in all probability to be traced to the selfishness and interested motives of the baronial lords, in whom the feudal laws vested a power over the infant daughters of their tenants. The abolition of the feudal wardships and marriages at the Restoration, which took away these beneficial fruits of the lord's tenure, was an important alteration for the people, and contributed not less to the improvement of morals than to the growth of their liberties. The law which vested so early a power of disposal in marriage, has always been deprecated, aud, among other writers, Montesquieu has with his usual naïveté satirized its mischiefs: "Cette loi etoit révoltante de deux manières: elle n'avoit aucun égard au tems de la maturité que la nature a donné à l'ésprit, ni au tems de la maturité qu'elle a donné au corps." (Lib. xxvi. cap. 3.) The distinctions of these various contracts, however, were destroyed by a statute passed in the 32d of Henry VIII. cap. 38. This statute recited the fact of marriages CHRIST, OBSERV, No. 249. having been annulled by reason of pre-existing contracts, and then enacted that all such marriages should be held to be good, any of such contracts notwithstanding.The 2d of Edward VI., however, repealed this, on the ground that it produced "horrible mischiefs, and encouraged persons to break contracts;" stating these things in the preamble in a somewhat declamatory style. Swinburn highly approved of the repeal, and says it was "worthily and in good reason enacted;" but we cannot but agree with Dr. Phillimore, who is, by the way, not a little fortified by the language of Sir W. Scott (now Lord Stowell), in his celebrated judgment in the case of Dalrymple, that the Marriage Act of Geo. 11. (of which we shall say more presently) did well, when it "swept away the whole subject of irregular marriages, together with all the law belonging to them, by establishing the necessity of resorting to a public and regular form, without which the relation of husband and wife could not be contracted.", Before the passing of that Act, various statutes had been framed with reference to the marriage of priests, the degrees of consanguinity, the crime of bigamy, the marrying a woman child under 16 years of age, and the infliction of penalties on the clergy for the omission of the requisite and accustomed forms; on which it is not necessary to dwell particularly, for, with reference to the more immediate subjects in contemplation in the present Act, the main guides had, until that period, been the Canons of the Church, particularly those set, tled by King James in 1603; and the Act of Geo. II. stands remarkable for being the very first instance which occurs in our annals of any interference on the part of the le • See 32d Henry VIII. c. 38; 2d and 3d Edward VI. c. 21; 5th and 6th ditto; 4th and 5th Philip and Mary, c. 8.5 6th and 7th William III. c. 6; 7th and 8th ditto, c. 35; 10th Anne, c. 19. 4 F |