It may now be proper to consider some objections that have been offered against the publication of marriages.

Objection 1. There are cases in which it is impracticable to observe the usual mode of publication three several Sabbaths before the marriage. Sometimes the banns, as they are called, are proclaimed only one or two Sabbaths; and sometimes a minister or magistrate is called to celebrate a marriage in such circumstances as admit of no delay.

Ans. Hardly any rules of order are without exceptions; which, however, do not take away the use of such rules. When publication before marriage has been enjoined either by church or state, the exception of extraordinary cases, such as, that of a soldier or sailor being suddenly called to leave the place, where the marriage is proposed to be celebrated, is always understood. They ought to be considered as observers of this rule, who give proper evidence, that they sincerely endeavour to observe it, as far as the circumstances of cases admit.

Object. 2. This rule has not such scriptural evidence as would warrant any church to make it a term of communion.

Ans. The terms of communion, according to our declaration and testimony, are a proper knowledge of the truth, a faithful profession of it, with a conversation and practice becoming the gospel. But it is not consistent with such a profession and practice, for a person to refuse to observe the rules of good order in the society to which he belongs; or to disregard such rules as trivial; while he cannot shew, that they are unlawful or unnecessary, or disagreeable to the general rules of the word of God. The previous publication of marriages has been shewn to be scriptural, by the same sort of reasoning and inference from the precepts and examples of scripture, as that which we use in proving the warrantableness of various forms belonging to the order of our churches; such as the distribution of tokens of admission to the Lord's table, employing ruling elders to carry the elements used in the Lord's supper to communicants, the serving of edicts at the ordination of ministers and elders.

Object. 3. The profanation of the Sabbath is occasioned by the custom of publishing the purpose of marriage on that day.

Ans. The principle, now contended for, (which is, that marriage ought to be public, not private,) does not require the publication to be on the Lord's day. If an opportunity occurs of publishing a marriage on another day, it should not be neglected. But if there is no opportunity of publishing it on another day, that which is afforded by the public assemblies on the Sabbath, ought to be embraced. Not that it is an ordinance of the Sabbath, or formally an exercise of religious worship: but because, though it belongs to our secular concerns, yet it is one of those works of necessity and mercy, which must sometimes be done on the Sabbath; or be neglected. For in order that marriage may be regular, it is necessary, that it be public, and not private. Nor would the publication of a proposed marriage on the Lord's day have any such tendency, as has been alleged, to divert the minds of christians from the proper exercises of that day, if the following considerations were duly attended to:

1. That marriage is of peculiarly serious consideration as an ordinance of God; the institution of which is expressly recorded in Gen. ii. 18. It is a contract, as the judicious Mr. Calderwood* observes, partly divine, partly political. Hence, he considers the cognizance of it as belonging to the church no less than to the state.

2. That the church of Christ has a peculiar interest in the right use of marriage, and in preventing the abuses of it. Marriage, in the right use of it, is a means of propagating a godly seed, Mal. ii. 15. The abuse of it is a principal cause of defection in the church. It was one principal cause of that prevailing wickedness which brought the flood upon the old world, Gen. vi. 2, 5. The publication of marriage is one of the means of preventing such abuse.

s. That it is one of the ends or uses of the publication of the purpose of marriage, that the parties, in taking so important a step, in which both their temporal and spiritual welfare is so much concerned, may have the benefit of the sympathy and prayers of their christian brethren. These considerations, all taken together, distinguish the publication of the purpose of marriage from the notification of ordinary contracts about secular affairs; and shew that the former is not, like the latter, inconsistent with the sanctification of the Sabbath. Nor can it be inferred to be so from the levity of some, who are in the habit of laughing or smiling at the publication of a marriage:-In this case, it is not the publication of marriage, but the folly of trifling with a serious matter, that ought to be corrected. Wicked men may make a necessary duty a stumbling-block to themselves. But it does not follow, that the people of God ought to regard it in that light, or to omit the practice of it.

Object. 4. The publication of the purpose of marriage is unknown in many places, and people cannot be brought to understand the use

of it.

Ans. This plea cannot be insisted on with any colour of reason, where the publication of marriage is authorised by the law of the state; nor among people who are of the Presbyterian denomination, by whom the Confession and Directory of the Westminster Assembly, or of the General Assembly of the United States, have been received. Besides, it is the business of both magistrates and ministers to inform the people of the rule according to which marriages ought to be celebrated, and to warn them against whatever is irregular or of evil tendency in this matter. The more ignorant the people are, they have the more need of counsel; and the less reason have ministers or magistrates to excuse their negligence on account of the caprice or inclination of such people.

Object. 5. Licences, according to which the parties or their bail enter into a bond, rendering them liable to pay a great sum of money, perhaps 1000 dollars, in case it shall be found that there is a precontract or any other relevant objection against the marriage, may well serve as a substitute for publication, and may answer the ends

of it.

Ans. One end, which it cannot answer, is very obvious; it does not make the marriage public. But in ordinary cases, marriage, to be regular, ought, as we have seen, to be public. Whatever penalties'

may be incurred by marrying with such a licence as is now described, it is of little avail, while a person who is determined to violate a precontract, or any other important obligation, is often ready to enter into a bond himself, or to prevail on some other person to give bail for the sum proposed, if he may thereby accomplish his end. Nor is the danger of the legal penalty in such a bond very great. It is reasonable to suppose, that many would offer relevant objections in order to prevent an unhappy marriage, who could never think of prosecuting the offender, or his bail, for a sum of money, while the principal evil, the marriage, which is likely to render the seduced party miserable for life, cannot be remedied.

On this subject, it is proper to observe, that what is granted by a licence to the parties proposing marriage, is something which they either had, or had not, a right to without the licence. We have granted, that in some cases, persons ought to be married without having the purpose of marriage published the usual time before. And then it is a matter of right: the reason of it does not lie in any licence or bond, but in the peculiar necessity and utility of departing, in such a case, from the common rule. But a licence to depart from that rule, without regard to necessity or utility, from mere favour, or for money, ought not to be granted nor accepted.*

When the Papal authority was cast off by Henry the VIII, of England, a power was given by an act of parliament to the archbishop of Canterbury, of granting licences to marry without publication of the banns three several Sundays, according to the direction in the liturgy. The prelates, in a canon dated in the year 1603, appointed such licences to be granted to none, but persons of quality, as they are called; and added many precautions; such as, that they should not be granted in cases in which the parties were within the prohibited degrees of affinity; or where there was a pre-contract, or any other lawful bar; or where any of the parties had not obtained the express consent of their parents or guardians, if they had any. Besides, every marriage by such licences was to be solemnized publicly in the church or chapel of the parish in which one of the parties resided. Considering these precautions, the licences of these prelates seem to have been much less liable to abuse, than those described in the objection. Yet, says Mr. Calderwood, notwithstanding the precautions of the canon in 1603, many abuses and enormities are occa sioned by these licences: parents are bereaved of their children; contracts of marriage are eluded; clandestine marriages take place,

The licences here meant, are properly permissions to deviate from the general rule of the law concerning marriage. Thus, a marriage licence in England, is a permission to depart from the order of marriage prescribed in the liturgy of the church, which is there established by law. In Pennsylvania, a marriage licence is a permission to depart from the principal direction of the act of the assembly of that state, for preventing clandestine marriages. But licences must be considered in another light, where they belong so much to the common and legal order of marriage, that the law allows none to marry or be married without them. These two sorts of licences are very different. The former sort are granted in England and in Pennsylvania, on purpose that the marriage may be private; the latter sort, being granted with no such design, rather tend to make marriages public. The former altogether precludes the publication of the marriages so licenced, according to the order of any religious society to which the parties belong: the latter does not at all interfere with the mode of publication, which has been adopted by any religious society.

without the knowledge of the pastor or church, to which the parties belong.*

Object. 6. They ought not to be called clandestine marriages, which are authorised by law.

Ans. The objector seems to confound the epithets clandestine and illegal. If an action be authorized by the law of any state, it will not be illegal, or it will not subject a person to any penalty in that state. But it does not follow that such an action is not clandestine; that is, private, when it ought to be public. A state may be said to permit clandestine marriages, when the law expressly appoints the previous publication of marriages under a penalty; and yet, in particular cases, in which there is no peculiar reason of necessity or utility, grants licences to marry privately. Mr. Stewart, of Pardovan, tells us, that persons may be married clandestinely two ways: One is, when banns are not proclaimed; the other is, when the marriage is celebrated by one not ordained and admitted by the church, nor authorized by the state. The phrase is used in much the same sense, according to Blackstone, in the laws of England.

Object. 7. The publication of marriage is a civil affair, which concerns the commonwealth. But according to our confession of faith, synods and councils are to handle and conclude nothing but that which is ecclesiastical; and are not to intermeddle with civil affairs, which concern the commonwealth.

Ans. It is true, that they are not to do the peculiar business of the state; they are not to determine what form of civil government should be adopted in any particular country; what penalties should be incurred by the breach of the civil law; or by what ways and means money should be raised for the support of civil government; or what particular forms of procedure should be used in civil courts. Such affairs are so peculiar to the state, that church courts ought not to intermeddle with them, unless, as our confession says, by way of humble petition, in cases extraordinary, or by way of advice, for satisfaction of conscience, if they be thereunto required by the civil magistrate. It is evident, however, that the Westminster Assembly did not view the publication of marriage as belonging to this class: but rather as among these things that are cognizable by both civil and ecclesiastical courts; such as, the manner of taking an oath, by kissing the book of the gospels; the unlawfulness of marriage between parties within certain degrees of kindred; or of divorces in any other cases than that of adultery, perjury, stealing, and many other immoralities. These evils, however, are cognizable by the civil courts and by the church courts in different points of view. In the former, persons accused of such evils, are considered as members of civil society; in the latter, as professing christians. These evils are condemned in civil courts as injurious to the commonwealth, and as breaches of human laws: but in the church courts, as giving scandal and offence to the church, and as breaches of the Divine law.

The sentences of civil courts are enforced by the sword or external force; those of church courts by spiritual censures only. Thus,

Altare Damascenum, pages 64, 65.

in various respects, the wilful and causeless neglect of the publication of marriage may be a ground of civil punishment in the state; and at the same time, of spiritual censure in the church. It is farther to be observed, that the spiritual kingdom of Christ is distinct from, and independent on the civil state: and therefore, the same action may be agreeable to the laws of the state, and yet censurable as a scandal in the church. Hence, it is no reason why persons should not be censured in the church for such a neglect of the publication of a marriage as is now described, that it is not condemned by the laws of the particular state where they reside. Sessions or presbyteries are courts of another kingdom, quite distinct from the civil state; these spiritual courts have laws and regulations of their own, according to which they are to judge of the conduct of their members; and to censure whatever is found contrary to these laws and regulations; however agreeable it may be to the laws of this or the other civil state. In doing so, church courts cannot be justly said to intermeddle with matters that are without their sphere; for nothing belongs more properly to their business, than to censure whatever they find in the conduct of their members contrary to the word of God, or unbecoming the christian.

No. 6. On the style or manner of expression which ought to be used in preaching the gospel.

Edinburgh, August 26, 1761. The associate synod calling for the report of their committee of overtures, the following overture was given in and read, viz. "That "the synod would consider of some proper method of cautioning those "under their inspection who may be pointing towards public work in "the church against an affected pedantry of style and pronunciation, "and politeness of expression, in delivering the truths of the gospel, "as being an using of the enticing words of man's wisdom, and in"consistent with that gravity, which the weight of the matter of the "gospel requires; and as proceeding from an affectation to accommo"date the gospel in point of style, which, if not prevented, may at "length issue in attempts to accommodate it also in point of matter "to the corrupted taste of a carnal generation: and that they would recommend it to all the ministers of the synod, to shew a suitable "pattern in this matter; endeavouring in their public ministrations, by the manifestation of the truth in plainness and gravity, to recom"mend themselves to every man's conscience in the sight of God: "and that at the same time the synod give caution against all such "meanness and impropriety of language, as have a tendency to bring "discredit upon the gospel; as also against using technical, philoso"phical and learned terms, that are not commonly understood."

66

66

The above being again read, and reasoned upon; the synod agreed, without a vote, in appointing, recommending and cautioning accordingly. And further they recommended to the several presbyteries to have an extract of this act ingrossed in their respective books; and to be careful to conform thereto, in the licensing of young men.