the terms of an act of parliament, which makes a marriage, and which faid terms are not one of them found in the Bible as conftituting marriage in the fight of

an

It must be allowed that Sect. 10. which concerns the marriage of infants under age, without confent of parents and guardians, has fome authority from the fcriptures, but it goes too far ;-the fcriptures give a power to the father of a woman, being in her father's houfe in her youth, to vacate any vow the made without her father's knowledge or confent (Numb. xxx. 4, 5.) and of courfe any betrothment or efpoufal which he had entered into, per verba de futuro, or de præfenti, but could not vacate actual marriage, the act which conftituted this, was irrevocably gone and paft. See before vol. i. p. 25. It is to be obferved, that the power over vows was confined to fathers only, and this only in the cafe of daughters-or to husbands in the cafe of wives, which laft fuperfeded all authority which could be derived elfewhere. See Numb. xxx. 6, 7. Gen. iii. 16. latter part, Gen. ii. 24. Pope Paul IV. made a conftitution, ann. 1557, that marriages made by fons before the age of thirty, and of daughters before the age of twenty-five, without confent of father, or of him in whofe power they were, fhould be void. Brent. Hift. Counc. Trent, 407. The fame Pope fent a monitorie to Dame Joan of Arragon, wife of Afcanius Columna, that fhe fhould not marry any of her daughters without his leave, or if he did, the matrimony, though confummated, fhould be void. Ib. 749. Our law feems to quadrate exactly with this papal monitorie, in affuming a power to vacate marriages, which are not made by leave of the parliament, even though confummated. Pope Paul's monitorie was a bold encroachment on the divine prerogative, but that of the British parliament was much more fo;-the first refpected the individuals of a fingle family-the latter those of a whole nation.

7

GOD.

GOD. If after the words "fuch mar"riage fhall be null and void," there had been added, " as touching and concern"ing fuch or fuch civil rights, privi

66

leges, or immunities, given to mar"ried perfons by any law, ftatute, or "custom of this realm," this might have fallen within the line of human jurifdiction; but to affect the divine inftitution itself, fo as to make that null and void which GoD hath ratified by faying-they fhall be one flefb, is a facrilegious attempt to repeal the law of Heaven, just as much so as interfering with any other ordinance of GOD, as to its validity, unless administered according to act of parliament.

The Popes of Rome have made very free with the laws of GOD, even to the striking the fecond commandment out of the Decalogue, because it bore a little too hard on the idolatry of the church of Rome; but instead of one, we have struck out many of GOD'S commandments-viz.

Gen. ii. 24. Exod. xxii. 16. Deut. xxii. 28, 29. because clandeftine marriages bore hard upon the pride and ambition of the nobility and gentry.- But to return to the main point

To illuftrate what has been faid on the subject of intermeddling with GoD's ordinances, let us fuppofe a cafe-Bap

tifm

tifm is a divine ordinance, ordained, both as to the fign and thing fignified, by CHRIST according to the prophecies of the Old Tefftament. The words by which this ordinance was fet forth, are to be found Matt. xxviii. 29. Goye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. This is the whole ordinance of baptifm, and our church rightly declares-Can. xxx.—that "when the minifter, dipping the infant in "water, or laying water upon the face of it, hath pronounced these words—I baptize thee in the name, &c. the infant is fully and perfectly baptized, so as the fign of the cross being afterwards used, "doth nothing add to the perfection and "virtue of baptifm; nor, being omitted, "doth detract* any thing from the ef"fect and fubftance of it."-Now let us suppose that minifters should scruple to use the fign of the cross in baptifm, that this fhould grow fo general, as almost to amount to an abolition of the ceremony; this being complained of to the higher powers,

“

*Why is this?Because the ordinance of baptifm is fimply that which God hath made it. For the fame reason, marriage is fimply that which God bath made it. Therefore no additions of man's invention, or the want of them, can affect the marriage union (any more than the baptifm) in GoD'S

fight.

3

they

they enact a law for the restoration of it, in which is the following claufe-" And "be it further enacted by the authority. aforefaid, that no perfons who fhall be baptized, not having the fign of the cross made upon their foreheads, fhall "be deemed or reckoned members of the "Chriftian church, but such baptifm shall "be null and void to all intents and purpo" fes whatsoever." Can any perfon, who has a true regard for the word and ordinances of GOD, maintain that fuch a law could in the least affect the ftate and condition of a person so baptized, before GOD, or that he would be, in the divine account, lefs a member of the chriftian church because of fuch a law? Would it not be a facrilegious attempt to alter GOD's own ordinance, and to make it fubject to the law and will of man, and as fuch to be despised and abhorred by all the faithful?-Where then is the difference? -GOD is as exprefs and determinate as to the one marriage ordinance, as to the one ordinance of baptifm: therefore by no rule of found reafon can it be proved, that both are not equally out of the reach of human authority, fo as that man can neither add to nor diminish from either, in the fight of GOD.

That human authority may order an outward

outward marriage ceremony, or a public baptism, to be used or administered at fuch a given time or place, I do not difpute; nor do I doubt but those may be punished who tranfgrefs fuch order-but that fuch things can affect the validity of a divine inftitution, with refpect to itself, must surely be denied by all who will allow GOD to have a fole exclufive jurifdiction and authority over His own appointed ordinances. When therefore GOD fays that if a man lies with a virgin not betrothed, She fhall be his wife, BECAUSE HE HATH HUMBLED HER, he may not put her away all his days, which is but an explanatory way of faying-they fhall be one flefb-an human law which adds-" provided fuch " and fuch conditions be obferved, as "banns or licence, otherwife fuch marriage shall be null and void, to all intents "and purposes whatfoever (which is but an explanatory way of faying they fhall "not be one flefb") is as palpable a denial of GOD's inftitution, as to its validity, as can well be conceived; as alfo an abfolute contempt of the words of CHRIST, in the conclufion which he draws from the divine declaration-What God hath joined together let not man put afunder. It would be a moft abfurd attempt, and what all the world befides would laugh

.66

at