as the very ne plus ultra of the art. By the way, as I have mentioned "devil's verses," I might as well here explain the meaning of the term, and this simply is, verses that read backwards and forwards the same: the difficulty of composing which has procured them the above appellation.

I only at this moment recollect two examples; -one in Greek— Νίψον ἀνόμημα, μὴ μόναν ὄψιν, which is frequently inscribed on baptismal fonts in England,* and signifies, "wash the sins, not the face only;" and this in Persian, which means "he gave me rest." Apropos of which, it is fully time for me to give this to my readers. I will therefore conclude.

داد مارا ارام

NUGARUM AMATOR.

ON MARRIAGE CONSIDERED AS A RELIGIOUS CONTRACT.

SIR,-Having heard various opinions sported in company respecting the Institution of Marriage, considered by some as a civil, by others as a religious, contract, I beg leave to offer some observations on the subject, through the medium of the "Moofussul Miscellany ;" and though not any

* This inscription is on the font in St. Mary's, Nottingham, and may also be found on the font in Sandbach Church, Cheshire, and on that at Harlow in Essex.

thing in them may be new or striking, yet, when thrown together, and duly considered, they will, I think, tend to prove that Marriage is of divine institution; and that, consequently, it is more a religious than a civil contract. Prior having claimed a collateral descent equally long as that of Bourbon or Nassau, as the son of Adam and of Eve, so I, being almost as nearly related to that couple as Mat himself, feel myself authorized to take the liberty of first adverting to their marriage. We are taught to believe, by the highest authority, that when the great Author of our being brought these good folks together, "He blessed them," (Gen. chap. 1, v. 28) this, without twisting the meaning of the word to my own purpose, was, that he pronounced a blessing upon them, and thus consecrated by prayer their union. (vide Johnson.)

The Jewish marriage was solemnized by the Rabbi, who used to pronounce the following benediction:-" Blessed be thou, O Lord, who hast created man and woman, and ordained marriage," &c. When we advert to the marriage of Christians, we find that our Saviour blessed and sanctified it by his presence. We are also told that it was at a marriage-feast where he wrought his first miracle. In our ceremony, we begin with, "We are gathered together here in the sight of God," &c. We call it "holy matrimony,"-and why? Because it was instituted of God, or, according to the Jewish benediction, ordained. Let us now seriously re

flect on the following expression :-"Those whom God hath joined together, let no man put asunder." If we consider that we are correct in saying, "those whom God hath joined together," we cannot but consider the institution a religious one, for if it be a civil ceremony, we ought to say,— "those who have joined themselves together,"or, "those whom I" (the officiating layman or priest) "join together." I feel convinced, in my own mind, that any person who reads, without prejudice, but with attention, the marriage service of our Church, must allow that it is a religious, and an awfully religious, ceremony.

I well know it will be advanced, that the form of the marriage service is of human invention;— granted. And is not our form of public worship equally so? But is our attending that public worship of less moment-less expected of us,—or more lightly esteemed, as, what Johnson terms it, "a religious act of reverence?" At the same time that I allow the form of matrimony to be of human invention, I aver that the institution of it is founded on Divine Authority. In proof of this assertion, I must beg leave to note some passages in addition to those to which I have already adverted. Is not the giving the woman to the man, founded on the Almighty bringing the woman to the man?

Does not Adam then say, "This is now bone of my And does not the

(Gen. chap. ii. v. 28)
bone, and flesh of my flesh,"

man, in our service, make a declaration to the same effect, though not in the same words? Does he not conclude by marrying the woman in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit? Can any compact be more solemnly or more religiously ratified? I may be asked, from whence came the form of marrying with the ring: —is it not a civil ceremony? I grant I grant it may be ; and it is of so ancient a date, that the primitive Jews used it in their marriage ceremony, with the following words :-" By this ring thou art my spouse, according to the custom of Moses, and the children of Israel." But to proceed. The man and woman are afterwards blessed in the name of the "Eternal God," &c. they are then declared to be man and wife, in the name of the Father, &c.; and, lastly, receive a blessing in as awful a form as our Church admits; and in as solemn language as any Church service can give it.

To close what I have adduced in favour of marriage being a religious ceremony, and of divine institution, I will subjoin the three following verses from the 19th chapter of St. Matthew :-" Have ye not heard that he, which made them in the beginning, made them male and female; and said, for this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife; and they twain shall be one flesh,-wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh: what, therefore, God hath joined together, let no man put asunder."

If we refer to the heathen nations, we shall find

that they ever held marriage so religious a ceremony, as never to have it performed without their priests solemnizing the same by sacrifices, and by calling on their deities to witness the sacred contract, and by invoking them to bless the marriage covenant. Thus, then, by considering the marriage ceremony simply a civil contract, we, in this, outdo the heathens themselves. I am convinced in my own mind, that if the marriage ceremony was performed in a more awful and solemn manner than even the canons of our Church direct; and if the divine institution of it was more thoroughly impressed on the minds of those who are married, we should not see so many couples putting themselves asunder, as we now do, in this Frenchified age of fashionable inconstancy, vicious politeness, and licentious gallantry. If it was my province to give advice, I should recommend to parents and guardians, to impress on the minds of their children and wards, that marriage is of divine institution; that they should seriously reflect on the state of their own hearts, and cautiously observe the conduct and disposition of each other, before they enter into a religious engagement ;-and that, having been pronounced man and wife in the name of God, no sophistry of the present age should induce them for a moment to consider that engagement a mere civil contract; for when once the marriage ceremony is lightly esteemed, the bonds of union are easily snapped by the artful casuistry of the designing libertine, or by the more