fore, of its own excellence, a good and religious man will consider the evils, which may arise from unsettling the public mind on a point wherein it is of the highest importance, that its convictions should be well established, and wherein practical proof has been given of the efficacy of the ancient, and long venerated form.

Whether we regard the Divine institution, and obligations of matrimony, or the purposes for which it was ordained, and its influence upon social and domestic purity and happiness, it is the interest of both the individuals to be married, and of the community in general, that the former should be deeply impressed with the awful sanctions of the marriage contract, and of the guilt and punishment, which will result from its violation.

These same interests of both individuals and the state, also render it of the highest importance that the blessing of God, be sought by the parties, through the ministrations of God's ambassadors, and the prayers of the congregation, to secure the faithful performance of the duties undertaken.

The question is not, whether in the sight of God the marriage compact entered into by other forms is binding upon the parties (which it undoubtedly is); but whether, when the practice and laws of the Church, the origin and nature of the contract, and the importance of that origin and nature being reverently felt, all demand a religious solemnization, any man can be justified in despising these claims

and setting up a new-fangled solemnization under the agency of laymen, instead of making "THE LORD A WITNESS BETWEEN THEE AND THE WIFE OF THY YOUTH 1."

The Church of Christ from the earliest ages, and the Church of England following that example, has ordained, by virtue of her reasonable and Scriptural authority, the religious solemnization of marriages. Therefore the members of the Church of England especially cannot themselves despise her ordinance, nor encourage others to do so, without sinning against God. And we may put it to reflecting Christians of all denominations, whether they can, with a safe conscience, set the example of encouraging disrespect for a solemnization, so consistent with primitive practice, so agreeable to Scripture in its spirit, its exhortations, its prayers, its blessings, and its covenants, and so vitally influential on the virtue and welfare of the community.

A contempt of these considerations will surely be but a bad beginning of a contract, under which the man expects obedience, and the woman faithfulness. How can a man lay a good foundation for obedience by an act of open disobedience to the Church, which St. Paul likens to the body of Christ; or the woman look for faithfulness, when in the very marriage ceremony she studiously disunites herself from the Church, by a comparison of the inseparable

1

Mal. ii. 14. See Appendix, p. 126, &c.

union of which with Christ its head, St. Paul illustrates the light in which her husband should regard her inseparable union with him '? How can either look for the kind, gentle, full, and scrupulous discharge of those numberless, but importantly influential duties, which no human laws can define, no human tribunal maintain, and which only a sense of Divine obligation, and the power of Christian love can enforce; when they both ostentatiously disclaim the religious sanctions of the contract, and have recourse to a secular officer, for the express purpose of proclaiming to the world, and certifying to each other, that they regard it only as a secular contract, and of secular obligations? Surely it behoves the religious minded to pause before he follows the new light of modern scepticism, and either adopts himself, or encourages in others the notion, that an institution of divine origin, and divine sanctions, so intimately connected with domestic and social happiness, is now all at once to change its form of solemnization, and to be placed on a level with contracts of man's invention, and of only man's authority. Can any sincere Christian greatly err, by following the directions of our learned and pious Protestant Reformers, avowedly based upon the practice of the Primitive Church; by entering into this covenant, instituted by God Himself, through the ministration of God's appointed serv

ants; by hearing from the mouth of God's ambassadors the awfulness, and duration of the engagements undertaken; or by invoking, with God's priest, with God's Church, and in God's temple, the Divine witness to the contract, and the Divine blessing to enable him to fulfil it? Can he err in complying with that form of solemnization, which (independently of its propriety and its Scriptural appeals and prayers) has by long usage become venerable in the eyes of the people, and greatly assisted in promoting reverence for the covenant thus entered into? But may he not err, and grievously err, both to his own detriment, and to the offence and fall of many a weak brother, if, by adopting modern innovations, and casting contempt on this venerated form under which his own parents were joined in marriage, he shall do aught to diminish the sanctions of matrimony, and cause the ordinance of God to be regarded as only the ordinance of man?

The legislature has thought fit to legalise marriages made before a secular officer. But that amounts only to a permission to those, who may not take our views of the religious nature of the contract, or who have other objections to the religious solemnization of marriage, to enter into its engagements according to their own views. It does not amount to a denial of its divine origin, or its divine obligations. But, if it had amounted to this, it would not, in the remotest degree, have altered the

་

1

case.

What God has ordained, man cannot alter: if it be sinful to enter into the married state otherwise than by the religious solemnities of the Church, the state cannot take away the sin. We have no concern here with mere questions of policy, neither do we contend, that the state ought to force any man to enter into this contract in a manner contrary to his conscience; but we limit the permission and power of the legislature to its own province: its permission may be an effectual release within that province, but no farther. It may exempt from the judgment of human laws, but not from that of divine laws: it may make that legal which was illegal, but it cannot make that not sin, which by God's law is adjudged to be sin. As ministers of God, and watchmen over our Israel, we feel it our duty to deal unsparingly with such questions, whensoever they come within the province of religion. We speak to kings and legislators, as well as to subjects and citizens, in the name of the "KING OF KINGS, AND LORD OF LORDS.”

In this capacity I must deplore the necessity, though I do not deny the power, of the state to permit (as far as human law can permit) secular officers to join parties together in marriage. I must deplore it as tending, to lower the sanctions and obligations of marriage, to encourage disobedience to the Church, and to loosen the securities of domestic happiness and purity.

In this capacity I must warn the Christian com